Reading Response for Class on 3/28

Education Northwest - Trait Definitions 


The six traits of writing listed by Education Northwest are incredibly valuable attributes of writing. I believe that using these six traits to grade writing is reasonable seeing as they align with what is "suppose to be" taught in schools or the standards. Knowing these traits will enhance a student's writing and support them when it comes time to write on standardized tests. However, I also believe that if students only focus on these six traits of writing, the material they produce might fall a little flat.

The six traits of writing are seemingly straight forward, and present a fair grading system, but students should be supported in exploring ideas in writing that exist outside these six traits. These six traits don't highlight deeper meaning or personal connection, they fit a formulated structure, which can be helpful as a guide, but at some point needs to be broken and explored. Personally, if I was presented these six traits and told I was being graded on them, without the teacher pushing me to go further, I would write to fit the way I was being guided. Teachers have these six traits as tools for correcting and assessing writing, not for teaching it. It is the instructors job to influence students, asking them for more.

One idea that came to me when looking over the definitions was, teachers have the choice to select which trait matters most. I used to hear it all the time in high school: a student who received A's on writing assignments in one class did nothing different, and received B's the next year when their teacher switched. One of the difficult parts of grading writing it that it is so subjective. One teacher might like pieces with more voice, others want more structure. Students learn to write for their professor to get the grade, versus writing for the audience or meaning, which can be very dangerous.

Writing is tricky, teaching it and completing it. It is important to have strategies, like the six traits, to simplify the situation, but we cannot gets stuck in a mold. Elaborating on the basics is key.

Reading Response for Class on 3/21

Paul Roswell, Artifactual Literacy 

I enjoyed the central focus of this chapter, the idea that artifacts or objects can hold meaning and, when utilized, can prompt student writing and response. I remember making "memory boxes" or "personal time capsules" in earlier grades, having to shove items into a brown paper bag and later explain their meaning. It was interesting to discover the stories I remembered, stories which often involved such ordinary, everyday objects. I agreed with Roswell's quote that, "Literacy is always shaped by the social context in which it occurs." When writing a piece, outside influences like the writer's experiances and memories often come through. This forms a deeper connection with the piece of work.

This chapter discusses literacies, similarly to what we've dabbled with in class, involving many different scripts and medias. I appreciate that these artifacts, or artifact activities, bring in more than one literacy. The idea of storytelling branching from these objects is neat. I've always been a storyteller myself, so much so that my friends used to recognize me for it in high school. There's a connection that's formed, not only with the writer, but also with the audience, when a significance that isn't quite so obvious is revealed. People have more in common than they think, and these artifacts is a great way to reveal that. In a diverse classroom, this activity would be great. Even if students bring in unfamiliar objects, there is always that opportunity for a peer to speak up and say, "Oh, I remember something like that," or "Oh, my family does the same thing!" 

The idea of multimedia literacies is something I experienced a lot in schools. We were allowed to create pictures, videos, songs, stories, poems, etc. for our projects and it was nice to have so much choice. I believe this is valuable in schools because it covers so many of the multiple intelligences and fits so many different types of learners. Roswell's idea, that texts begin to "look different" when multi-literacy is brought in, may also help students struggling with english or reading, ELL students or students who have simply fallen behind. By bringing in ideas and memories and objects from everyday life, all students are able to engage and connect, enhancing their work. 

I, personally, love the idea of considering the "everyday" and its complexity. Though it might not seem it, simple objects mean more than we think. Selecting artifacts and writing in response can challenge students to consider possibilities that might not be as straightforward as they're used to. 

Danling Fu, Writing Between Languages

Our readings began with chapter 2 of Fu's text, "ELLs' Writing Development." I have not had much experience with ELL students, other than some brief tutoring opportunities during FNED. I found it interesting to read that no matter the level of the student, "all expressed frustration with English writing." It seems reasonable since students have to translate text and thought and vocabulary from one language to the next, all to face a blank sheet where they're required to follow rules and guidelines in hopes of getting something down. That's a long process to complete something we english language speakers seem to take for granted. Granted, academic writing is difficult for everyone, as Fu states. I can't imagine going through my english classes in high school, learning to write and analyze complex texts and papers, all while experiencing a language barrier. Fu's examples of the four stages of ELL writing were incredibly telling. First, the writing in the native language, then the mix. Next a slightly more coherent essay and finally, a well written paragraph. It seems, from Fu's text at least, that working with ELL students is best considered when formulaic and procedural, taking specific note of development and accomplishment outside of traditional standards. 

Chapter 3, "Native Language Writing in ELLs' Writing Development," discussed the importance of the native language. I appreciate than Fu mentioned his previous thought processes, that native languages should be bypassed and english should be the focus. I feel like this is the viewpoint considered most often, although I have read articles and texts suggesting different. I agree with Fu that translation in writing can be just as telling and valuable as writing an english text or essay. I found it interesting that "thinking" in english aids in speaking and proficiency of students while helping less in writing. I liked that Fu brought in examples of texts translated from a native language to english and then written in english to show the drastic difference. My concern is how reasonable is this to allow in the classroom. I do however, understand that assessing both forms of writing can help a teacher decide what support the student needs most. This chapter brought in the idea of utilizing different cultural events or features when a writing assignment is given to an ELL student. This could work well with the artifact assignments mentioned above in Roswell's chapters. The chapter also discussed how multi-literacies can aid english language learners, be it pictures or poems or other forms. I liked that this chapter brought in ideas about how teachers can act when they don't understand a student's work, using conferences or author "chair sharing" to have the student explain and read their writing. I agree with the idea of assessing effort and progress over strictly what is produced. 

Fu's text discussed transitional stages in the fourth chapter of his book. This is the first time I have been introduced to the term "code-switching," the process of mixing languages. I found it interesting that this can happen with vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, etc. There are so many different parts to writing we forget about. This chapter emphasizes the importance of code-swtiching as a transitional stage, "promoting growth in english writing." I've been in a classroom where unfortunately, this is not allowed. I've heard the phrase, "only english," far too often for the little experience I have with ELL students. I appreciate that this text got into the idea of bilingual students vs. ELL students. I agree that the distinction between the two is important, along with the affect this has on a student's writing. Again, Fu included some great examples of student work and progress in this chapter. I also love that this chapter discussed the "textbook issue." If an ELL student cannot read the textbook that a class is working with, how are they suppose to learn the same as another student. The final topic that caught my eye in this chapter was collaborating between ESL and regular classroom teachers. It was my impression that most schools do not have ESL/ELL teachers. Fu's text explains that there are usually a few to work with the many kids in a school, but I have to wonder, is this still a privileged group rather than the norm? Are our classrooms taking the necessary strides to service ELL students? It makes me slightly concerned, seeing as this ELL conversation is one I have only experienced in a few of my courses. I still feel as if I don't have enough experience to service ELL students properly as a teacher, which I hope will change. However, texts like Fu's will definitely be added to my repertoire, if I'm ever in need of strategies. 

Quick Write for Missed Class on 3/14

Question 1: Michelle Kenney’s article “The Politics of the Paragraph” discusses the problems with teaching the five-paragraph essay. She disputes one common thought on formulaic writing, that writing formulas are like training wheels, and you need to “know the rules in order to break them.” In your own experience in high school, did you learn the five paragraph formula or other formulaic writing? Did you find that it helped you become a better writer? If you were taught formulaic writing in school, did you have any issues when you started writing on the college level? Or did you find that formulaic writing helped prepared you for college writing?

Response:

In high school, we had the exact five paragraph essay formula mentioned in the article. I can break it down for you:

In the intro, start with a catchy hook. Provide some background information on the text and then formulate a thesis that includes 3 ideas - these will be your three paragraphs. Each paragraph needs to start with a topic sentence that connects the main idea of the paragraph back to the thesis. You then need to cite quotes or textual evidence, making sure to integrate them properly, and then give a warrant. Repeat, repeat, repeat. In the conclusion, restate your thesis, summarize your points, and ask some big-picture rhetorical question.

I probably wrote fifty of these essays over my high school career, forty of which were during my junior and senior years when I was taking AP english courses. They were suppose to be "college" level courses preparing us for the years following high school. Unfortunately, they didn't.

I did really well on the writing portion of my SAT's because I followed this five paragraph format. It has a time and a place, that is for sure, but when I got to college I was amazed when teachers actually wanted out of the box ideas, critical thinking, and papers that broke the formula of the "five paragraph essay." I got decent grades on my initial papers because I had been taught how to write well but my teachers kept asking - Give us more. Go further. What is your real argument?

The "five paragraph essay formula" doesn't ask you to think in depth about a topic or a text. It asks you to analyze imagery, rhetoric, and symbolism and explain how they all relate back to a central theme. In college, I began to understand texts and ideas on a new level because I was finally challenging myself when it came to writing about them.

I can remember in my first semester when my first year writing professor told us we could use "I" in our essays and the entire class notably gasped. It was incredibly humorous, thinking back. We considered it a crime to state our own opinion in the work we completed.

I completely agree with Kenney that you have to "know the rules in order to break them." My high school writing career certainly helped me in college, in the formation of essays and the timeliness I had to write them. However, I wish that someone had told me, okay, now it's time to break the rules. I wish that happened in high school.

Reading Response for Class on 3/14

"The Politics of the Paragraph"

The first idea in this blog post, the "formulated three paragraph essay," is something I dealt with through all of high school. Like the student in the piece, Erica, I was under the impression I had to limit myself to three ideas, three paragraphs, four to five sentences a paragraph. It was ridiculous. It not only limited my writing and ideas, but totally shut me down as a student. When you're writing something so simple, so robotic, it makes it really difficult to connect to the piece. I think it is so true when the author says "Systems like these encourage students to produce shallow, fast-food versions of paragraphs that don’t allow much elbow room for creativity or critical thinking," and it is such a shame that this is the major form of writing being taught in our classrooms. Sure, it is great for standardized tests and AP exams, but it is terrible for our students. Shouldn't there be a balance?

I thought it was critical that the author of this blog post brought up the demographics of her school, where students were diverse, high poverty, and with minimal literary skills. This alters how a teacher must teach, but also alters how a teacher must consider testing and achievement of students. However, I personally don't believe a writing template is the answer. Maybe at the beginning, for a very short time, to get the students' feet wet and up their confidence. However, at some points, student engagement and connection will take them farther in a piece of writing than any structure ever will. It's so true when the author says, "the process of educating a good writer is more time-consuming and messier than that." Teachers have to be dedicated to the work and school systems have to stand behind them. Unfortunately, at the moment, the "system" doesn't seem to allow this. It's unfortunate, but I'm glad there are people out there noticing and saying something about this upsetting pattern.

Gallagher, Chapter 2-4 

Gallagher's second chapter began and continued by explaining the importance of writing in the classroom, writing at all times possible. She discusses a lack of critical thinking within writing students are producing, similar to what was discussed above in "The Politics of the Paragraph." It upsets Gallagher that this is the case, and she sites many others like Donald Murray and Steven Krashen who have done plenty of research on things like "teach the writer... not the writing." This resonated very strongly with me, especially when Gallagher further made the point that, "If I recognize my duty to teach the writer, I must insist that writing activities be moved to the forefront in the classroom." Writing can be brought into the classroom in so many ways, but it is hardly emphasized as much as it should be. I really liked the writing charts Gallagher included in this chapter and thought the work was engaging and got the students writing and thinking before the "actual writing" took place. I also really like the idea of the weekly writer's notebook. I remember doing morning writing prompts in middle school, questions that had students engage and write about different interests, very simple versions of the quick writes we do in class. The work was un-graded, but great to complete, and I know it personally helped me practice as a writer.

Gallagher's third chapter reminded me a lot of my science methods course for elementary education. We focussed A LOT on modeling writing for students, chart, conclusions, focus questions. Any writing we assigned during a lesson was suppose to be modeled first, and I saw a HUGE change in student work when we did. We put sentence starters on the board, filled in a guide with the students (they were fifth graders) and then left the guide up for them to use. Having those tools to utilize let the students formulate their thoughts in more productive ways.

I like Gallagher's idea about the "lousy first draft" because I never really considered this when I was in school. I thought all writing for class had to be perfect at all times, even if it was a draft. I wanted my draft to come back with a few spelling mistakes, and that would be it. However, this isn't how writing should be! It should be a process! I love how Gallagher references Ralph Fletcher's idea that the first draft is "the sneeze"- "blasting" thoughts out to see what comes of them, writing without fear.   There is definitely a "fear" when it comes to writing, that many students experience, that should be altered. I really enjoyed Gallagher's suggested steps to getting students to embrace difficult writing, especially the "Adopt a 4:1 Grading Philosophy." I also really agree on her emphasis of modeling revisions. Revising is difficult, whether it be personal or peer, so knowing guidelines and tools makes this step so much more effective. When teaching writing, there are so many crucial steps to consider, steps that must be worked through.

Finally, Gallagher's fourth chapter, "using real world models" was very interesting. I LOVE that Gallagher mentioned the connection between reading a writing. I had a US History teacher in high school who insisted we read, insisted that reading is the best way to learn. He emphasized that to write you must read. I, personally, agree with this 110%. I enjoyed Gallagher's point about essay lengths, and the fact that if she assigned a 300 word essay, she would receive a "303 word essay." Of course, her students would rather her give them a length. I understand this, even now in college. If a teacher doesn't give a defined length, I'm left wondering: Am I babbling on too long? If my essay isn't very long, am I too concise? Do I not have enough information? I believe this goes back to the "Politics of the Paragraph" and how I'm so engrained to have a structure and a set-up for my writing. I was taught this way for so long that when finally someone says, go forth and write, I freeze up. I'm glad that Gallagher speaks against this, because I feel like this approach in the classroom needs to change.

I enjoyed the ideas of using film (introductions and reviews) and magazines in the classroom as models for writing. There is so much "informal" writing that students address everyday, that isn't considered when teaching writing. I appreciate the use of blog posts in this class; it is a form of writing I read most constantly. Also, these medias connect to student interest. It's also a little unorthodox, which students pick up on, and engage with. Students like doing something different, stepping out of the traditional "box." If you give them the opportunity, they will use things in the world around them and flourish.