as Reader

On this page, I've included reflections and notes on selected academic scholarship I read during/connected to the Institute.

Buckner's Notebook Know How: Chapter One and Chapter Two

Bless, Press, Address Protocol link

“Introduction” and “Naming What We Know” from Naming What We Know

Padlet for continued discussion

Prompt: Look at the questions on page 3: How is "good" composed knowledge (and its opposite) defined? How are students taught to produce composed knowledge? How is composed knowledge assessed? What values are associated with judgements about composed knowledge? As you think about writing instruction, how can the "threshold concepts inform curriculum and assessment"? (pg 9)

Response: One way I'd say composed knowledge is determined to be “good” is when it accomplishes the writer’s goal as shaped by the discourse community. To contribute to a specific discourse community, the writer must respond to the rhetorical situation and audience-specific concerns like genre, language, content, and style. If the composed knowledge meets these expectations, then, it would most likely be considered good (effective), but, if it doesn’t, then it would most likely be considered bad (not-so-effective).

Students are taught to produce knowledge through a matrix of sensory observations, personal experience, and a combination of reading, evaluating, and mimicking (forms of) existing knowledge. This knowledge, in first-year writing, is often assessed through rubrics designed by teachers who want to meet departmental standards and help students enculturate into higher levels of academic discourse.

There are many values associated with such judgments, but the ones that immediately come to mind are institutional/departmental guidelines, professional standards, and the teacher’s own ideas of literacy as shaped by their writing experiences, acceptance/rejection of disciplinary scholarship, and views on the purpose of the composition classroom.

Threshold concepts can guide curriculum and assessment as they speak to the trajectory of a writer’s life and not just to, in my case, their semester-long subjection position as a first-year writer.

Choose a few sections from “Concept 1: Writing Is a Social and Rhetorical Activity” in Naming What We Know

Notes

1.2 Writing Addresses, Invokes, and/or Creates Audience s (Andrea A. Lunsford)

“Writing is both relational and responsive, always in some way part of an ongoing conversation with others” (20).

For Ong, the audience for a speech is immediately present, right in front of the speaker, while readers are absent, removed. Thus the need, he argues, for writers to fictionalize their audiences and, in turn, for audiences to fictionalize themselves—that is, to adopt the role set out for them by the writer.

“Writers whose works have “gone viral” on the web know well what it means to create an audience that has been unintended and indeed unimagined. Perhaps even more important, the advent of digital and online literacies has blurred the boundaries between writer and audience significantly: the points of the once-stable rhetorical triangle seem to be twirling and shifting and shading into one another.”

1.4 Words Get Their Meanings from Other Words (Dylan B. Dryer)

Cup does not have an especially elaborate range of meanings (consider words like go or work or right), but it adequately illustrates Ferdinand de Saussure’s great insight: “In language itself, there are only differences” (Saussure 1983, 118). Saussure meant that because there is no necessary connection between any sounds or clusters of symbols and their referents (otherwise different languages would not exist), the meanings of words are relational—they acquire their meanings from other words. Any definition relies on words to explain what other words mean; moreover, words in a sentence or paragraph influence and often determine each other’s meaning.

Relations that imbue a sentence with particular meanings come not just from nearby words but also from the social contexts in which the sentence is used.

· when writers understand that meanings are not determined by history or Webster’s prescriptions alone, but also by language users’ contexts and motives, they gain a powerful insight into the causes of communicative success and failure.

· writers who understand that the definitions of any word develop from its usage realize that they, too, are part of this process; every instance of their language use works to preserve certain meanings and to advance others.

1.7 Assessing Writing Shapes Contexts and Instruction (Tony Scott and Asao B. Inoue)

Writing assessments are a social activity and can be shaped by a variety of individual or institutional factors, including stated goals for writing education; disciplinary philosophies of literacy and learning; political agendas; efficiency imperatives; or common cultural assumptions about writers and literacy. Because the judgments reflected in assessments are informed by factors like these, assessment is not neutral: it shapes the social and rhetorical contexts where writing takes place, especially in school.

In other words, whatever is emphasized in an assessment produces what is defined as “good writing” in a class, a program, or a curriculum.

Lexicon Valley: A podcast about language, from pet peeves to syntax

from Digging Deeper into Action Research (Nancy Fichtman Dana)

Notes

Chapter 1: Why Do Teacher Research Anyway?

Teacher research: a systematic, intentional study of one’s professional practice – seeking a change through reflecting on practices.

“Tracing its roots to the work of John Dewey (1933), the concept “practitioners as researchers” that was popularized by Kurt Lewin in the 1940s (Adelman, 1993), and shortly thereafter applied to the field of education by Stephen Corey (1953), has been around for decades…the systematic study of teachers’ practice is a concept that has proved its staying power” (1).

Model of Inquiry: cyclical process of posing questions, collecting data to gain insight, analyzing the data along with reading relevant literature, taking action to make changes in practice based on new understandings developed during inquiry, and sharing findings (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009).

Chapter 2: Wondering Defined

“A wondering is defined as a burning question a teacher has about the practice…Wonder is the foundation for formulating a researchable question based on issues, tensions, problems, or dilemmas experienced by the teacher” (10).

Dana says “there are three great strategies a teacher researcher can use to explore, articulate, and reflect: talking, brainstorming, and reading” (11).

Books on Teacher Research: Creating Equitable Classrooms Through Action Research (2007), Taking Action With Teacher Research (2003), and Empowering the Voice of the Teacher Researcher: Achieving Success through a Culture of Inquiry (2010).

Wondering: How can collaborative writing lead to increased critical thinking skills, agency, writing processes, and/or awareness of academic conventions in the FYC classroom? What are some ways to better support collaborative FYC writing projects?

[Assignment idea: organize students into groups of different stakeholders who take on the persona of different stakeholders arguing about a chemical plant at a townhall.]

· Is your wondering something you are passionate about exploring?

· Is your wondering focused on student learning?

· Is your wondering a real question (a question whose answer is not known)?

· Is the wondering focused on your practice?

Dana says “an important premise of practitioner inquiry is that the only person a teacher can control is him- or herself. Wonderings that focus on changing the behavior of others rarely lead to the important self-discovers about teaching that inquiry can reveal” (23).

Is your wondering phrased as a dichotomous (yes/no) question?

· In what ways does…

· What is the relationship between…

· How do students experience…

· What happens when…

· How does

Is your wondering specific?

Choose one of the two or both of these articles:

Addison and McGee, “Writing in High School/Writing in College: Research Trends and Future Discussions”

David, Gordon, and Pollard, Seeking Common Ground: Guiding Assumptions for Writing Courses

Addison, Joanne, and Sharon James McGee. “Writing in High School/Writing in College: Research Trends and Future Directions.” College Composition and Communication 62.1 (2010): 147-79.

Notes

At this historical moment, more stakeholders than ever are involved in collecting and analyzing large-scale data on writing instruction in the United States. These stakeholders range from the U.S. Department of Education (National Assessment of Educational Progress, otherwise known as the Nations Report Card), testing/assessment organizations (e.g., College Board), nonprofit educational organizations (e.g., National Survey of Student Engagement), professional organizations (e.g., Writing Program Administrators and Conference on College Composition and Communication), and individual institutions (e.g., Harvard University, Stanford University, and University of Denver).

Pew Internet and American Life/ National Commission on Writing report, Writing, Teens, and Technology

One of the most important developments in large-scale writing research for our field is the recent partnership between the Council of Writing Program Administrators and the National Survey of Student Engagement – survey questions: https://comppile.org/wpa+nsse/docs/27_Question_Supplement.pdf

Writing instruction across the curriculum, a diverse sample: To this end, our research includes three high schools (one suburban public high school in a relatively affluent neighborhood [27% free/reduced lunch and 7% drop-out rate], one urban high school in a relatively poor neighborhood [63% free/ reduced lunch and 26% drop-out rate], and one private, all-girls Catholic high school), as well as two community colleges, two four-year public institutions, one four-year private institution, one public MA-granting institution, and one doctorate-granting, flagship institution. We began with a survey (see Appendix) of both faculty and students from across the curriculum.

“The National Commission on Writing sent a survey to the human re source directors of 120 major American corporations affiliated with Business Roundtable. Combined, these corporations employ nearly eight million people. Survey results revealed that two-thirds of salaried employees in large American companies have some writing responsibility, inadequate writing skills are a barrier to promotion, certain types of writing are commonly required, and an estimated $3 billion is spent each year training employees to write” (151).

Results of their survey show “that even when faculty do engage in best practices for teaching writing, many students do not engage in best practices for learning how to write, calling attention to the need to find ways to encourage greater engagement among students for best practices in learning how to write” (160).

“Students, however, think much more highly of their abilities than their teachers. Student overall ratings ranged from a low of 3.19 to a high of 4.3.”

Melzer’s research confirms our own results that college faculty provide little opportunity for exploratory writing or workplace-based genres. As we reflect on the types of writing being assigned we need to consider not only whether they promote deep learning but also whether the writing submitted by students evidences the deep learning intended as well as ways in which we may or may not be preparing students for life beyond the academy.

In Writing: A Ticket to Work... or a Ticket Out, the National Commission on Writing surveyed the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of many of the leading U.S. corporations. Among the findings is that "Writing is almost a universal professional skill required in service industries as well as finance insurance, and real estate.”

“Even within the same discipline teachers may not be doing enough to articulate best practices to their students or employing the required meta-language.”

Faculty across the curriculum do care quite a bit about audience but have not articulated it in the ways composition does.

“Promoting a balanced emphasis on literary analysis alongside rhetorical analysis in high school could lead to students who are better prepared for the writing required of them in college and the workplace. Here we imagine an interdisciplinary curriculum in high school and college English departments that does not displace literary studies but rather re-establishes the importance of English studies broadly conceived at all levels and within all disciplines. Further, we suggest taking a close look at whether or not "the essay" as a genre is still a useful or viable genre upon which to base writing curricula at all levels. If the essay is no longer a viable genre, or even if it is, we need to do more to encourage instruction in genres that embrace both the deep learning promoted when writing is an integral part of any course as well as exhibit the multimodal skills now required across the curriculum and into the workplace. One possibility among many is literary journalism that is rooted in artfully crafted narrative and critical research-based writing” (170).

David, Denise, Barbara Gordon, and Rita Pollard. "Seeking Common Ground: Guiding Assumptions for Writing Courses." College Composition and Communication, vol. 46, no. 4, 1995, pp. 522-532.

"Amidst the discordant voices in the field, a fundamental question is emerging: "What do we mean when we call a course a writing course?" Now is a crucial time for composition studies to engage in a conversation exploring the assumptions underlying writing courses. Such assumptions undergird teaching decisions, and because they are often tacit, they are sometimes difficult to tease" (524).

"primary traits" common to all writing courses” :

1) The development of writing ability and metacognitive awareness is the primary objective of a writing course,

2) The students' writing is the privileged text in a writing course,

3) The subject of a writing course is writing,

4) Time is devoted to the subject of writing and not to some other subjects,

The issues which confront writers are formidable. They include understanding one- self as a writer, finding a subject (which may include reading other positions and points of view), framing that subject in reference to an audience, and casting it in a voice the writer has chosen. Students must take responsibility for a position, be informed of other positions and hear the questions of other students and the instructor. Students must be authentic participants, not passive receivers. (526)

5) Classroom talk is about the subject of writing,

The teacher cannot, however, presume to know the content of the student's text better than the writer does, and so talk about content needs to be motivated by the teacher's desire to understand wha

6) Teachers and students assume roles appropriate to the study of the subject of writing (Here, they argue “learning to write well involves learning to make rhetorically sound decisions. This means that students must have opportunities to practice making writing decisions and then to reflect upon those decisions and their consequences. Writers must make decisions about purpose, audience, approach, syntax, and diction. But these decisions are prompted by the most basic decision: What shall I say?” [526]).

As Russell states, "Freshman English was an easy target for those who wished to preserve the elite character of the institution which had faded at the turn of the century with the rise of the comprehensive modern university and its decidedly middle-class, professional emphasis" (133). In fact, the NCTE was founded in 1911 in opposition to Romantic arguments posed by Thomas Lounsbury to eliminate compulsory composition courses.

Elbow’s “Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process”

“I concluded that good writing requires on the one hand the ability to conceive copiously of many possibilities, an ability which is enhanced by a spirit of open, accepting generativity; but on the other hand good writing also requires an ability to criticize and reject everything but the best, a very different ability which is enhanced by a tough-minded critical spirit. I end up seeing in good writers the ability somehow to be extremely creative and extremely critical, without letting one mentality prosper at the expense of the other or being halfhearted in both” (327).

“Our loyalty to students asks us to be their allies and hosts as we instruct and share: to invite all students to enter in and join us as members of a learning community-even if they have difficulty. Our commitment to students asks us to assume they are all capable of learning, to see things through their eyes, to help bring out their best rather than their worst when it comes to tests and grades. By taking this inviting stance we will help more of them learn. But our commitment to knowledge and society asks us to be guardians or bouncers: we must discriminate, evaluate, test, grade, certify…

We have a responsibility to society-that is, to our discipline, our college or university, and to other learning communities of which we are members-to see that the students we certify really understand or can do what we teach, to see that the grades and credits and degrees we give really have the meaning or currency they are supposed to have” (328).

“When they trust the teacher to be wholly an ally, students are more willing to take risks, connect the self to the material, and experiment” (329).

“Let me turn this structural analysis into a narrative about the two basic urges at the root of teaching. We often think best by telling stories. I am reading a novel and I interrupt my wife to say, "Listen to this, isn't this wonderful!" and I read a passage out loud. Or we are walking in the woods and I say to her, "Look at that tree!'" I am enacting the pervasive human itch to share. It feels lonely, painful, or incomplete to appreciate something and not share it with others” (330).

“In Piaget's terms learning involves both assimilation and accommodation. Part of the job is to get the subject matter to bend and deform so that it fits inside the learner (that is, so it can fit or relate to the learner's experiences). But that's only half the job. Just as important is the necessity for the learner to bend and deform himself so that he can fit himself around the subject without doing violence to it. Good learning is not a matter of finding a happy medium where both parties are transformed as little as possible. Rather both parties must be maximally transformed-in a sense deformed. There is violence in learning. We can not learn something without eating it, yet we can not really learn it either without letting it eat us” (331).

Socrates and Christ as archetypal good teachers: they flunked "gentleman C" performances, they insisted that only "too much" was sufficient in their protectiveness toward their "subject matter." I am struck also with how much they both relied on irony, parable, myth, and other forms of subtle utterance that hide while they communicate.

“Even though we are not wholly peer with our students, we can still be peer in this crucial sense of also being engaged in learning, seeking, and being incomplete” (332).

“We even see a hint of this separation of roles when teachers stress collaborative learning: they emphasize the students' role as mutual teachers and thereby emphasize their own pedagogic role as examiner and standard setter” (335).

"Summarize the three main theories in this course and discuss their strengths and weaknesses by applying them to material we did not discuss." Or perhaps I am more interested in a process or skill: "Write an argumentative essay on this (new) topic." Or, "Show how the formal characteristics of this (new) poem do and do not reinforce the theme." I might want to give room for lots of choice and initiative: "Write a dialogue between the three main people we have studied that illustrates what you think are the most important things about their work."

“I have been wholehearted and enthusiastic in making tough standards, but now I can say, "Those are the specific criteria I will use in grading; that's what you are up against, that's really me. But now we have most of the semester for me to help you attain those standards, do well on those tests and papers. They are high standards but I suspect all of you can attain them if you work hard. I will function as your ally. I'll be a kind of lawyer for the defense, helping you bring out your best in your battles with the other me, the prosecuting-attorney me when he emerges at the end.”

“In short, there is obviously no one right way to teach, yet I argue that in order to teach well we must find some way to be loyal both to students and to knowledge or society. Any way we can pull it off is fine. But if we are teaching less well than we should, we might be suffering from the natural tendency for these two loyalties to conflict with each other. In such a case we can usually improve matters by making what might seem an artificial separation of focus so as to give each loyalty and its attendant skills and mentality more room in which to flourish” (338).

Our Favorite Writing Resources: Books and Articles

Murray's Teaching Writing as Process, not Product

Bonus reading: Emig's Writing as a Mode of Learning

from Tom Romano's Clearing the Way: Chapters 4 and 5

Sincoff's Writing as Relationship

Dean and Warren's Informal and Shared: Writing to Create Community

David, Consalvo, and Vetter's Crafting Communities of Writers: Advice from Teens

Knoblauch and Brannon, Responding to Texts

Romano's Clearing the Way Chapter 8

Smith's The Genre of the End Comment

Warriner, et. al. Finding Value in the Process: Student Empowerment through Self-Assessment

Mazura, Rapant, and Sawyer Teaching Revision as an Act of Voice and Agency

Harris' Revision as Critical Practice

Giles’ “Reflective Writing and the Revision Process: What Were You Thinking?”

Yancy's Reflection in the Classroom Chapter 6

Swartzendruber-Putnam's Written Reflection: Creating Better Thinkers, Better Writers

O'Neill's From the Writing Process to the Responding Sequence: Incorporating Self-Assessment and Reflection in the Classroom

Harding's Writing beyond the Page: Reflective Essay as Box Composition

LeVan and King's Self-Annotation as a Course Practice