Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Should I, Will I, Can I use it? (GOTTA HAVE IT (Lisa Delpit's The…
Should I, Will I, Can I use it?
GOTTA HAVE IT
Lisa Delpit's The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse was a fantastic exploration and breakdown of the discourse hierarchies that tend to trap students who do not come to school already possessing the dominant discourses that education demands they have in order to succeed. Although this is a concept that I have looked into before, Delpit was able to breakdown why and where these discourses form as well as suggestions on how we can help prepare students to learn new discourses to function in dominant ones, and also change those systems from within. This is exactly the kind of theory and thinking that I want to put into my future teaching.
-
-
Min-Zhan Lu's Multiculturalism: The Politics of Style in the Contact Zone discusses the disconnect in the classroom in how educators bring in theory into practice and the negative consequences that puts on students. Lu breaks down where educators fail to include multiculturalism in their practices, even when they claim to do so. There are wonderful examples and strategies that she uses within her own teaching as well as where readers like myself can take action to better provide a space in writing in the classroom that does not focus on marking students down for 'errors' but desires them and wants to transform them into a voice. There is such a wonderful examination of the problems non-dominant discourses face in the classroom and ways in which we can not really eliminate the issues, but use the to successfully prepare students and put more confidence in their writing.
These texts were both on the same wave length of being able to educate students in how to become great writers without stripping them of the skills and discourses they already come into the classroom with. Both of these pieces are great in conversation with one another and push me to want to become a better educator and provide the space my students need to succeed in the systems that will try to push them back or mold them to some specific shape that they do not need to be in.
This is just my own thinking, but I really do not see very many differences between these texts. Yes, they do discuss different concepts and different ways of solving problems, but the main resolution and purpose of both is to benefit all students in education and beyond.
LIKE IT
Kennedy and Howard's Collaborative Writing, Print to Digital explores the uses and impacts of collaborative writing as well as doing so within digital platforms. They discuss how collaborative learning can engage students more deeply with texts and provide more opportunities to engage in collaborative discussions on texts. As displayed in class, it can be overwhelming to write collaboratively, especially when students are not used to such an activity. With that being said, it was also wonderful to see a flood of thinking and differences in writing from the classroom on the same topic.
-
-
Ken Macrorie's chapter The Poison Fish exposes the faults in the education system of how and what teachers grade their students writing on and what students are aiming to produce. There is an emphasis on setting aside the drive to include words and language that is not our own and focus on developing and real and truthful voice that is not aiming to be some great thought, but rather a natural extension of how we view the world through our writing. Suggestions on how to do so range from what teachers need to do as well as what writers can do in order to free themselves from the confines that some educational systems have classified writing to be.
-
The major connection I saw between these texts a similar urge for educators to help create writers that are more engaged within the writing than they have been within old school teaching. Although both of these works discuss very different ideas, they pair hand in hand with one another. They both strive to influence 'better' writers who are aware of their own voice, and look to work with others on how to continually work on and grow that voice.
Although I feel I have mentioned elsewhere my feelings about the lack of actionable steps provided from the Macrorie piece, I'll mention it again. Kennedy and Howard's piece gave several actives and strategies on how to implement their theory of rhetoric into a classroom space and this is place where Macrorie fell a little flat for me. It is great to free write and free write with a purpose, but then what? Does free writing just craft that voice? I need more than that!
LOVE IT
Flower and Hayes The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem discusses the importance in knowing and understanding the audience of the writer and what drives them to write. Goals are mixed in with persona's and audience and explains that as writers, as people really, we must be exposed to more and more genre's in order to succeed within the world. Educators need to give their students the opportunities to explore and absorb more genre's and provide them with the skills they need to improve their writing and know who they are attempting to write to and about. There is also a drive for revisiting and revising work to best play around with who is writing and who they are writing to.
Both of these texts are pieces I enjoyed reading and have already thought about, in terms terms of the use of the theories within my future classrooms, and within both I saw some minor similarities, but mainly major differences. The major connection I see in these pieces is that both emphasize and honor that writing is a process and needs to be worked on without a finite end. We should always be looking at our work and seeing where we have changed and where we can change our writing. Whether that be the audience or even the way we now view the world, there is no end to where we can take our writing.
The major difference I saw between these two pieces was that I felt Murray was more interested in developing student voices and pushing that we must end the way in which we are currently grading students whereas Flower and Hayes were looking to find and solve the problem with their solution being creating good writers. Even though both works looked to improve the writing skills for those being taught, Murray seemed more organic and built off the flow of the individuals writing and process and Flower and Hayes broke it down into steps up what good writers do and that is what you should be doing in order to become one, which seemed still like you would get stuck in a system.
How can I fully incorporate these theories without sacrificing too much or going too far against state standards and school policy?
Donald Murray's Teaching Writing as a Process not a Product dissects the incredibly negative consequences that can arise from grading and judging student work only at one point and only looking for certain criteria that leaves out any chance of genuine writing. Instead, we should view writing as a pretty much endless process of revision and reviewing. Students will be able to use their own voice, focus in on the things that they care about in writing, and develop more confidence in their writing. This text also provides instruction for instructors and what I can do to bring this kind of space into my own classroom. By following this concept, there would be a much heavier value placed on creativity and individualism in writing rather than looking to grade on who wrote the most with the biggest words in a timed setting.
-
Although there was an obvious connection, to me at least, between these texts, I viewed them in separate categories. To be more specific, the connection I feel within these pieces is ending the confines that have been set on what writing should look like in schooling and allowing the opportunity for multiple revisions. The reason I felt a stronger connection to Murray's piece was I feel there was more of an explanation of what I need to do as an educator to help my students with this in a way that is actually attainable and less 'easier said than done' kind of thing like with Macrorie. I saw that because he offers these bold ideas like using truthful voice but somewhat stops at that.
EHH..
Rosamond King's They Ask, Should We Tell? Thoughts on Disclosure in the Classroom touched on the world of privacy in teacher and student communication and gave a new perspective on the issues that can come along with. King describes her own experiences with sharing personal information with students and chooses to not share anything and turn questions back on students as a way for them to reflect on why they are so focused on asking those questions. It was a smart way of handling intrusive questions, but I know this is something I do not think I agree with. I think at a college level yes, but if it wasn't for the supportive and open connections I had with one of my teachers, I do not think I would be here today.
What do I need to learn more about in order to fully appreciate and incorporate these texts into my own thinking? Do I even need to do that?