Reflection on Responding-to-Student-Writing Readings
Today, I have a problem with words.
WORD # 1: CONTEXT
The word “context” seems to me the refuge that most researchers often resort to. Teaching methods are context-based, “goodness”, “badness”, “effectiveness” just to name a few as far as writing is concerned are also context-based. And now, responding to or rating student writing is also contextualized. This is true insofar as what works for a writing classroom does not necessarily work another.
WORD # 2: HOLISTIC
The word “holistic” is scary for me both as a teacher and as a student. I have always felt it is the teacher’s responsibility to explain in detail a given piece of writing of mine. “I need to know why I have got 8 out of 10.” My classmates used to make fun of me and say: “It is great that you got 8 out 10, so why do you want to open the door of the devil, Devil is in the detail”. The TOEFL’s essay part is rated holistically by an average of two raters. A holistic scoring system, as stated, is a closed system, and this is very “true”. It is so closed –and maybe rigid– that no creativity permeates and no flexibility occurs. However, for other researchers the more comments there are in a teacher’s feedback, the more discouraging things become for students.
WORD # 3: DIAGNOSTIC
The word “diagnostic” is a medical term. In responding to writing, “diagnostic” refers to the idea, as it appears to me, that teachers taking formalist models (grammar-, spelling-, and punctuation-oriented) are nothing but “good” diagnosticians who see or hunt for whatever problems there are in a student’s piece of writing. When writing teachers are diagnosticians, they become error “huggers” and hunters interested in nothing but mechanics.
WORD @ 4: GRAMMAR
What is grammar? How far should responding-to-writing practices be grammar-based? Can we abandon and delete grammar from our responding-to-writing dictionaries? Is it better to talk about grammars rather than grammar? Grammar is a mechanics-based issue, a form-oriented issue, how can we separate it from content? Does better grammar mean better writing? Does grammar instruction help develop students’ writing skills? Form sometimes shapes the content, mechanics (e.g. spelling) may sometimes alter the meaning altogether, right? I guess so. :) In short, grammar, or mechanics in general, support, enhance but can replace neither the entire writing process students get engaged in nor the entire responding-to-writing process teachers get involved in.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Reflections on Chapters 4 and 5: Connecting Reading and Writing
Reading to write refers to the idea that the best writers are the best readers. I still like what Hirvela calls “mining”. As he suggests, students in writing classrooms should be looked at and need to be taught to be “miners”, “explorers” and “invstigators” mining for gold and valuables, exploring the unknowns and putting the bits and pieces of a certain “writing crime”. The “gold”, as it were, in not only content but also “linguistic, stylistic and rhetorical conventions”. In this regard, I really appreciate the “writerly reading” discussion and I would suggest the “readerly writing” dimension as well. It is through writing that we develop our reading, through reading that we develop our writing and through writing that we develop our writing. We develop as writers by actually writing, and by that I do not mean the actual writing but rather all that it is comprised of: writing, feedback, revision, pre-writing, re-writing and so on.
I also like the writing-classroom Collaborative and Computer-Assisted Models discussed by Hirvela. The blog entries we do on a regular basis in this class ands a few other classes are inevitable since they entail reading and writing. Through this “virtual”, though very real, world, we develop ourselves and others through negotiations and conversations. As for the Collaborative Model, it seems that in such a collaboration-savvy world, it is easy to take for granted how “collaborative” classrooms, and writing classrooms in particular, have truly become, and it is for that reason that countries in the “third world” are forgotten on the other side of the collaborative divide, so to speak, as is the case with the digital divide. In “traditional” classrooms, the teacher is the ultimate and only authority, source and center of information, whereas in collaborative classrooms students as well become producers of knowledge as well. The interaction will be three way (teacher-student, student-teacher and student-student).
I also like the writing-classroom Collaborative and Computer-Assisted Models discussed by Hirvela. The blog entries we do on a regular basis in this class ands a few other classes are inevitable since they entail reading and writing. Through this “virtual”, though very real, world, we develop ourselves and others through negotiations and conversations. As for the Collaborative Model, it seems that in such a collaboration-savvy world, it is easy to take for granted how “collaborative” classrooms, and writing classrooms in particular, have truly become, and it is for that reason that countries in the “third world” are forgotten on the other side of the collaborative divide, so to speak, as is the case with the digital divide. In “traditional” classrooms, the teacher is the ultimate and only authority, source and center of information, whereas in collaborative classrooms students as well become producers of knowledge as well. The interaction will be three way (teacher-student, student-teacher and student-student).
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Reflections on Reading and Writing Connections in L2: November 11, 2009
Reflections on Reading and Writing Connections in L2
Personally I have always heard about “reading to write” and “writing to read” as concepts but never gone into the particulars and details of each. Of course, by “always” I mean “since I came to the US to do my Masters.” Chapters 3 and 4 were very helpful, enlightening and informative. Both concepts suggest that “the best writers are the best readers” and “the best readers are the best writers”. Connecting reading and writing suggests that both are meaning-making processes, and this, as argued by Hirvela, could be seen as “misleading” especially from instructional perspectives.
Reading and writing are seen as “inter-supportive”, and the relationship existing between them can be directional, no-directional or bi-directional. In writing to read, writing is a means of an end; reading, whereas in reading to learn, it is the other way round. I have always implemented writing-to-read techniques (I write summaries, writing a complex idea in simpler terms, writing on the margins of a certain text, annotations, underlining, asking questions, writing a sentence that gives me an idea about the whole paragraph is about, writing note cards, journaling and so on). By getting engaged all these writing-oriented activities, my current and future reading of texts gets shaped and reshaped continuously, and thus a “stronger” reading occurs and tends to surface. By the same token, our writing develops by the reading we do, not only “content-wise” but also “form-wise”.
I really like the point that Hirvela makes in relation to reading instruction and that students do not learn reading by just reading decontextualized words, words existing in a vacuum and not constructed contextually and in a continuum. Reading as such should be seen as a “social” trait of learners rather than a classroom practice, and this is what I believe Hirvela means by the macro-level of reading; reading should go beyond the classroom setting and become a process part and parcel of students’ lives. It seems to me that he is suggesting we teach reading by writing and not teach reading by reading, and he suggests a number of writing-based activities and scenarios that enhance students’ reading abilities: summarizing, synthesizing, responding, journaling, just to name a few.
As Hirvela suggests, students should be looked at and need to be taught to be “miners”, “explorers” and “invstigators” mining for gold and valuables, exploring the unknowns and putting the bits and pieces of a certain “writing crime”, as it were. We need to become like “Dora the Explorer” The “gold” in a given text is not only content but also “linguistic, stylistic and rhetorical conventions” as is the case in the Modeling Approach. In this regard, I really appreciate the “writerly reading” discussion and I would suggest the “readerly writing” dimension as well.
Personally I have always heard about “reading to write” and “writing to read” as concepts but never gone into the particulars and details of each. Of course, by “always” I mean “since I came to the US to do my Masters.” Chapters 3 and 4 were very helpful, enlightening and informative. Both concepts suggest that “the best writers are the best readers” and “the best readers are the best writers”. Connecting reading and writing suggests that both are meaning-making processes, and this, as argued by Hirvela, could be seen as “misleading” especially from instructional perspectives.
Reading and writing are seen as “inter-supportive”, and the relationship existing between them can be directional, no-directional or bi-directional. In writing to read, writing is a means of an end; reading, whereas in reading to learn, it is the other way round. I have always implemented writing-to-read techniques (I write summaries, writing a complex idea in simpler terms, writing on the margins of a certain text, annotations, underlining, asking questions, writing a sentence that gives me an idea about the whole paragraph is about, writing note cards, journaling and so on). By getting engaged all these writing-oriented activities, my current and future reading of texts gets shaped and reshaped continuously, and thus a “stronger” reading occurs and tends to surface. By the same token, our writing develops by the reading we do, not only “content-wise” but also “form-wise”.
I really like the point that Hirvela makes in relation to reading instruction and that students do not learn reading by just reading decontextualized words, words existing in a vacuum and not constructed contextually and in a continuum. Reading as such should be seen as a “social” trait of learners rather than a classroom practice, and this is what I believe Hirvela means by the macro-level of reading; reading should go beyond the classroom setting and become a process part and parcel of students’ lives. It seems to me that he is suggesting we teach reading by writing and not teach reading by reading, and he suggests a number of writing-based activities and scenarios that enhance students’ reading abilities: summarizing, synthesizing, responding, journaling, just to name a few.
As Hirvela suggests, students should be looked at and need to be taught to be “miners”, “explorers” and “invstigators” mining for gold and valuables, exploring the unknowns and putting the bits and pieces of a certain “writing crime”, as it were. We need to become like “Dora the Explorer” The “gold” in a given text is not only content but also “linguistic, stylistic and rhetorical conventions” as is the case in the Modeling Approach. In this regard, I really appreciate the “writerly reading” discussion and I would suggest the “readerly writing” dimension as well.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
November 4th's Reflections on Reading
Reading and Writing Connections: Social perspectives
Bloome views reading as a three-dimensional social process, a process that is context-based, culturally-constructed as well as socio-cognitive. Reading is seen as an “event”, and the word “event” itself denotes the pre-existence of context (spatial as well as temporal) in a specific culture through interpersonal and intra-personal interaction. Reading is socio-cognitive in the sense that learning to read necessitates reading and learning cultural ways of “dealing with” things, as it were.
The more I interact with others, the more likely my problem solving ways (a culturally-bound process) will develop. When reading is seen as a social process, I believe here needs to be a shift of roles between the teacher and the students, especially in EFL contexts, and this could be “scary” or “not welcomed” at all. Whenever a social aspect is given to classroom practices or language skills, this could be seen as endangering the teacher’s presence or “image”, especially in contexts where teachers are historically seen as the ultimate “authority” and only source of knowledge.
In such a teacher-oriented classroom, Hirvela states that the more teachers determine what right is and wrong is, the more learning is inhibited and the less empowerment takes place. In this regard, Hirvela also argues for a socio-political dimension of literacy. In other words, it seems to me that he is looking at reading and writing from critical perspectives, as two main skills that shape, and are shaped by, the socio-political surrounding in a ways that echoes in my ear writing the word and the world and reading the word and the world since we are “social being” whether we like it or not, and we do not live in a vacuum. And this could be seen as one way to seeing the connection and interrelation between reading and writing. However, he implicitly and indirectly states that this way of looking at reading and writing, especially in L2 contexts, is “undermined” by the mere fact that the text is the ultimate source of literate knowledge.
Bloome views reading as a three-dimensional social process, a process that is context-based, culturally-constructed as well as socio-cognitive. Reading is seen as an “event”, and the word “event” itself denotes the pre-existence of context (spatial as well as temporal) in a specific culture through interpersonal and intra-personal interaction. Reading is socio-cognitive in the sense that learning to read necessitates reading and learning cultural ways of “dealing with” things, as it were.
The more I interact with others, the more likely my problem solving ways (a culturally-bound process) will develop. When reading is seen as a social process, I believe here needs to be a shift of roles between the teacher and the students, especially in EFL contexts, and this could be “scary” or “not welcomed” at all. Whenever a social aspect is given to classroom practices or language skills, this could be seen as endangering the teacher’s presence or “image”, especially in contexts where teachers are historically seen as the ultimate “authority” and only source of knowledge.
In such a teacher-oriented classroom, Hirvela states that the more teachers determine what right is and wrong is, the more learning is inhibited and the less empowerment takes place. In this regard, Hirvela also argues for a socio-political dimension of literacy. In other words, it seems to me that he is looking at reading and writing from critical perspectives, as two main skills that shape, and are shaped by, the socio-political surrounding in a ways that echoes in my ear writing the word and the world and reading the word and the world since we are “social being” whether we like it or not, and we do not live in a vacuum. And this could be seen as one way to seeing the connection and interrelation between reading and writing. However, he implicitly and indirectly states that this way of looking at reading and writing, especially in L2 contexts, is “undermined” by the mere fact that the text is the ultimate source of literate knowledge.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
October 28's Readings and Reflection on Genre-Based Pedagogy
Hyland argues against the process approach to teaching writing and for a genres approach seen as more socially-situated and more purposeful. It seems to me that Hyland is implying that we, L2 writing teachers, are “blindly” adopting (e.g. process pedagogy) what is used and offered to us from L1 research despite the very little evidence of effectiveness. The social take the researcher has on the process approach is that writing in the process-oriented recursive composing process(es) is cognitively individualist, so to speak. However, we do not live in a vacuum, we are not solitary, decontextualized beings as cognitivists argue for and social-process proponents argue against.
If “good” cognitive processes make, let's say, Writer A a “good” writer and/or “good” problem solver, this does not mean that this “goodness” of processes are transferable to other writers B, C, D and so on. Different people just address and solve problems differently due to cultural, social, political, economic, even “ecological” factors. There no one-and-for-all recipe for becoming a “good” writer, I believe, though there are some techniques that are here and there. What is “good writing” after all? This is also perceived differently by different people. It seems that the first half of this article works as a critique of process pedagogy and the cognitive model of writing.
With this critique of process writing, Hyland argues for a genres-based approach that “appreciates” the individual, so to speak, not only from an individualist point of view but also and more importantly from a social, communal standpoint. According to Kress (1989), in a genres-oriented approach to writing, students will be, though individually, more socially and contextually oriented and “constrained”. Taking these social and contextual aspects into consideration, according to Bakhtin, a “dialogic” and dialectic relationship tends to surface and emerge between multiple-voices writers and their “active” readers. The homogeneity of process writing and the heterogeneity of genres-approached writing mark a very significant distinction as well between the two. In short, genre-based pedagogy sees writing as community-based, socially-oriented and interaction-based, unlike process pedagogy that sees the writer as solitary and disconnected from the social world.
Hyland argues against the process approach to teaching writing and for a genres approach seen as more socially-situated and more purposeful. It seems to me that Hyland is implying that we, L2 writing teachers, are “blindly” adopting (e.g. process pedagogy) what is used and offered to us from L1 research despite the very little evidence of effectiveness. The social take the researcher has on the process approach is that writing in the process-oriented recursive composing process(es) is cognitively individualist, so to speak. However, we do not live in a vacuum, we are not solitary, decontextualized beings as cognitivists argue for and social-process proponents argue against.
If “good” cognitive processes make, let's say, Writer A a “good” writer and/or “good” problem solver, this does not mean that this “goodness” of processes are transferable to other writers B, C, D and so on. Different people just address and solve problems differently due to cultural, social, political, economic, even “ecological” factors. There no one-and-for-all recipe for becoming a “good” writer, I believe, though there are some techniques that are here and there. What is “good writing” after all? This is also perceived differently by different people. It seems that the first half of this article works as a critique of process pedagogy and the cognitive model of writing.
With this critique of process writing, Hyland argues for a genres-based approach that “appreciates” the individual, so to speak, not only from an individualist point of view but also and more importantly from a social, communal standpoint. According to Kress (1989), in a genres-oriented approach to writing, students will be, though individually, more socially and contextually oriented and “constrained”. Taking these social and contextual aspects into consideration, according to Bakhtin, a “dialogic” and dialectic relationship tends to surface and emerge between multiple-voices writers and their “active” readers. The homogeneity of process writing and the heterogeneity of genres-approached writing mark a very significant distinction as well between the two. In short, genre-based pedagogy sees writing as community-based, socially-oriented and interaction-based, unlike process pedagogy that sees the writer as solitary and disconnected from the social world.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
October 21's Reflection
The words “help”, “developmental”, “remedial”, “standard”, “native” and the like really annoy me insomuch as what they refer to is the real question. The first three words foster and enhance the deficit model that other ethno-linguistic diversities are less intellectual, less knowledgeable and possess less critical and analytical skills. What is Standard English? Is it the American English, British English, Scottish English, Australian English or World English?????
Personally, I find defining what is standard by what is not or by what it lacks rather “naïve” and “misleading” at the same time. Standard English is just a myth, a literacy ideology and an “abstract” concept that needs, or maybe does not need, to be concretized. Standard-English proponents say that the use of “ain’t” and double negatives is indicative of a “stigmatized” version of English, but what about these examples:
I might could do that
Drive careful
My car needs cleaned
It seems that topic relatedness is an important aspect of a writing classroom. However, from Johns’s article, I felt that this is not an easy task to perform. What relates to my experience as a learner might be different from that of what other learners’. One student loved to write about the different paces he had been in, whereas another loved writing about joining a certain cult, and a third loved to write a letter to a magazine editor. Learners across the board prefer to write for different reasons and for different audiences, and this is what I mean by the fact that topic relatedness is a relative concept.
It is about time all people acknowledged the fact that we do not live in a vacuum, but rather in a cultural, social, institutional, academic and discursive continuum. We live in a globalized world whether we like it or not, and calls for English-Only and mono-lingualism need to be reconsidered. Literacy, as argued by many scholars, is a highly social practice and process, and thus our classrooms need to be socio-literate in nature, because our classrooms are not homogenized. Classrooms are heterogenized; students come from diverse ethnic, linguistic, cultural, sub-cultural, dialectical, ideological backgrounds, and as teachers we have to be fully aware of such a fact and should not treat students, based on the deficit model and the native-non-native dichotomy.
Personally, I find defining what is standard by what is not or by what it lacks rather “naïve” and “misleading” at the same time. Standard English is just a myth, a literacy ideology and an “abstract” concept that needs, or maybe does not need, to be concretized. Standard-English proponents say that the use of “ain’t” and double negatives is indicative of a “stigmatized” version of English, but what about these examples:
I might could do that
Drive careful
My car needs cleaned
It seems that topic relatedness is an important aspect of a writing classroom. However, from Johns’s article, I felt that this is not an easy task to perform. What relates to my experience as a learner might be different from that of what other learners’. One student loved to write about the different paces he had been in, whereas another loved writing about joining a certain cult, and a third loved to write a letter to a magazine editor. Learners across the board prefer to write for different reasons and for different audiences, and this is what I mean by the fact that topic relatedness is a relative concept.
It is about time all people acknowledged the fact that we do not live in a vacuum, but rather in a cultural, social, institutional, academic and discursive continuum. We live in a globalized world whether we like it or not, and calls for English-Only and mono-lingualism need to be reconsidered. Literacy, as argued by many scholars, is a highly social practice and process, and thus our classrooms need to be socio-literate in nature, because our classrooms are not homogenized. Classrooms are heterogenized; students come from diverse ethnic, linguistic, cultural, sub-cultural, dialectical, ideological backgrounds, and as teachers we have to be fully aware of such a fact and should not treat students, based on the deficit model and the native-non-native dichotomy.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Reflections on The Politics of Second Language Writing Chapters Three, Four and Six
Reflections on The Politics of Second Language Writing Chapters Three, Four and Six
Personally these three chapters, especially Chapter 6, were very interesting and tackling “real-life”, academic issues. The fact that writing courses, ENGL 101 in particular, are made compulsory for university students to take, indicates and fosters Rose’s (1985) concept of utilitarianism in designing and teaching writing courses. This is to say writing is viewed as a skill that only a few, a privileged few, can teach and only some can learn it. I also appreciate mentioning the “dichotomy” between writing and communication in spite of some reservations. Writing is portrayed as distinguished from speaking and reading insofar the last two, unlike writing, are communication-based.
For me, writing is as communicative as speaking or any other language skills. Interestingly and ironically at the same time, why are L2 language courses are credit-free and other foreign language courses (Arabic, French, Spanish and so on) are not? There might be some (P)political (institutional or otherwise) underpinnings for such tendency. In most of the writing courses I have taken, this question above and this one are always discussed. There is no one-to-one relationship between ELI’s, or ALI’s, writing improvement and ENGL 101 students’ writing achievement.
This would raise a frightening question: what use is what we are doing? In a class last week, one of my classmates was “brave” to ask a daring question I had always thought of. “Why teach writing?” was her question. A similar question is raised by Leki: Why is writing is so privileged? There was some discussion on that; however, I felt I was not satisfied. Is teaching writing nothing but a political game, a process filtering the “literate” from the illiterate” (a gate-keeper)?
Unfortunately, I was not able to come across the word “required” in describing why students would come to the Writing Center. It is suggested and also required that some students show up at the writing center, and if they fail to do so they will not be given a bonus grade. The emphasis is always on “help with grammar”, and this is what tutees, both L1 and L2, ask me to do. Grammar is looked upon and viewed as the only thing students need though they might not need any “help with grammar” but rather help with organization, developing ore even generating ideas. It is very sad that mechanics and formalist issues are prioritized at the expense of other equally, or even more important, writing issues.
Both teachers and students, I am afraid, have become so mechanistic and form-driven. I highly appreciate the idea that writing centers should not be seen as “remedial” nor “developmental” sub-institutions but rather centers of learning. So it seems that the WC mission statement is not foregrounding the Deficit Model, but how to put that in practice remains the hard-to-crack question, I believe. We say we are not providing remediation and do the opposite (we are here to help, you need help, we need to work on some of your language problems, I need help with grammar … etc.).
I work at the writing center, and I feel there is a “cold war” existing between teachers and the writing center in general. Teachers suggest the writing center is the place to get help, the place where students can get their writing problems fixed and “diseases” cured or at least offered medicine and remedy. The Writing Center people, on the other hand, feel this belittles their role of promoting learning and think it is the teacher and the student (the tutee) that are supposed to solely responsible for their own learning.
Personally these three chapters, especially Chapter 6, were very interesting and tackling “real-life”, academic issues. The fact that writing courses, ENGL 101 in particular, are made compulsory for university students to take, indicates and fosters Rose’s (1985) concept of utilitarianism in designing and teaching writing courses. This is to say writing is viewed as a skill that only a few, a privileged few, can teach and only some can learn it. I also appreciate mentioning the “dichotomy” between writing and communication in spite of some reservations. Writing is portrayed as distinguished from speaking and reading insofar the last two, unlike writing, are communication-based.
For me, writing is as communicative as speaking or any other language skills. Interestingly and ironically at the same time, why are L2 language courses are credit-free and other foreign language courses (Arabic, French, Spanish and so on) are not? There might be some (P)political (institutional or otherwise) underpinnings for such tendency. In most of the writing courses I have taken, this question above and this one are always discussed. There is no one-to-one relationship between ELI’s, or ALI’s, writing improvement and ENGL 101 students’ writing achievement.
This would raise a frightening question: what use is what we are doing? In a class last week, one of my classmates was “brave” to ask a daring question I had always thought of. “Why teach writing?” was her question. A similar question is raised by Leki: Why is writing is so privileged? There was some discussion on that; however, I felt I was not satisfied. Is teaching writing nothing but a political game, a process filtering the “literate” from the illiterate” (a gate-keeper)?
Unfortunately, I was not able to come across the word “required” in describing why students would come to the Writing Center. It is suggested and also required that some students show up at the writing center, and if they fail to do so they will not be given a bonus grade. The emphasis is always on “help with grammar”, and this is what tutees, both L1 and L2, ask me to do. Grammar is looked upon and viewed as the only thing students need though they might not need any “help with grammar” but rather help with organization, developing ore even generating ideas. It is very sad that mechanics and formalist issues are prioritized at the expense of other equally, or even more important, writing issues.
Both teachers and students, I am afraid, have become so mechanistic and form-driven. I highly appreciate the idea that writing centers should not be seen as “remedial” nor “developmental” sub-institutions but rather centers of learning. So it seems that the WC mission statement is not foregrounding the Deficit Model, but how to put that in practice remains the hard-to-crack question, I believe. We say we are not providing remediation and do the opposite (we are here to help, you need help, we need to work on some of your language problems, I need help with grammar … etc.).
I work at the writing center, and I feel there is a “cold war” existing between teachers and the writing center in general. Teachers suggest the writing center is the place to get help, the place where students can get their writing problems fixed and “diseases” cured or at least offered medicine and remedy. The Writing Center people, on the other hand, feel this belittles their role of promoting learning and think it is the teacher and the student (the tutee) that are supposed to solely responsible for their own learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
