Yancey’s major contribution comes in the form of promoting new forms of assessment, especially digital portfolios. By focusing on assessment, Yancey believes that curriculum will improve, and she focuses on portfolios because of the easy way it lends to tracking student development.
Focusing of assessment will improve curriculum because it forces educator to ask themselves, “What is our intention?” The better one understands what he or she demands of students, the more obvious the skills that need to be taught are made. Focusing on assessment not only helps establish what should be taught, but it also turns the teacher’s toward how the information should be taught. Just as above, better pedagogy means clearer assessment and better student performance.
The mode that Yancey promotes the most is digital portfolios. The portfolio is well liked by Yancey because it provides an easy avenue for both teachers and students to examine the student’s progress. Whereas traditional assessment is only a snapshot of the student’s understanding at that moment, the portfolio presents as series of snapshots that show either stagnation, improvement, or decline in a student’s work. The portfolio also provides the student with the potential to reflect and revise his or her work; traditional assessment only provides one opportunity to “finish” a work. This revisionary system allows students to continue refining work, a feat that would require multiple assignments using traditional assessment (one assignment per draft).
Portfolios offer benefits beyond assessment. As Rhonda pointed out, many students enjoy using digital portfolios because they allow the student to express themselves in a non-linear fashion. Piggybacking on Selfe’s ideas of using technology in the classroom, this form of assessment allows students to apply their computer background in a manner that is not indulgent, but rather uses their knowledge to accomplish a real world task.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Cynthia Selfe: Technology; It’s What’s for Dinner
Based on the presentation, there are definitely three ideas that Selfe wishes to get across to us: teacher must be users of technology; we must not teacher our students to be indulgers; and technology has the potential to be either empowering or oppressive.
Selfe’s first point about being users of technology makes perfect sense. If technology is left out of the classroom, we are not only damaging the learning potential of our students, we are damaging our credibility. No one would take a literature class from a man whose only experience with reading was based on scrolls; in the same way, students do not want to entrust their educations to individuals who are not masters of the most current modes of communication. Selfe also warns of the ever-widening gap. She warns those teachers who wish to become more current that technology is not slowing down to allow anyone to catch up. Those teachers who do not strive to use current technology may find themselves unable to become users, even if they wish to.
Selfe’s point about technology indulgers is a sore point for me because that is what I am at home. However, within the classroom technology must be presented as a means to accomplish a job or goal. It cannot be used just for the sake of using technology, nor should it be presented as simply an avenue for entertainment. If these warnings are not adhered to, we will have wasted large portions of our budget on technology we don’t need, and we will have produced students who can’t understand their sickness to make statements like I have at the beginning of this paragraph. (you may laugh at that)
The point about the potential of technology is probably the most sensitive. As the presentation showed, technology is tied to economics. Those with more money will have more and better technology. It is up to the teachers to on the frontlines to keep this in mind when assigning work that requires technology and in judging the work of those with fewer resources.
Selfe’s first point about being users of technology makes perfect sense. If technology is left out of the classroom, we are not only damaging the learning potential of our students, we are damaging our credibility. No one would take a literature class from a man whose only experience with reading was based on scrolls; in the same way, students do not want to entrust their educations to individuals who are not masters of the most current modes of communication. Selfe also warns of the ever-widening gap. She warns those teachers who wish to become more current that technology is not slowing down to allow anyone to catch up. Those teachers who do not strive to use current technology may find themselves unable to become users, even if they wish to.
Selfe’s point about technology indulgers is a sore point for me because that is what I am at home. However, within the classroom technology must be presented as a means to accomplish a job or goal. It cannot be used just for the sake of using technology, nor should it be presented as simply an avenue for entertainment. If these warnings are not adhered to, we will have wasted large portions of our budget on technology we don’t need, and we will have produced students who can’t understand their sickness to make statements like I have at the beginning of this paragraph. (you may laugh at that)
The point about the potential of technology is probably the most sensitive. As the presentation showed, technology is tied to economics. Those with more money will have more and better technology. It is up to the teachers to on the frontlines to keep this in mind when assigning work that requires technology and in judging the work of those with fewer resources.
Erika Linderman: What Are They Going to Talk About?
Linderman seems like an interesting and focused woman. While I truly enjoyed Rebecca’s presentation, I don’t think Erika and I will be going out for beers and time soon; I’ll get to why in a moment. Linderman is concerned with three issues regarding the teaching of writing: she wishes to establish that students have always had difficulty with writing; she doesn’t use literature in composition classes; and she feels that composition should be taught as a system, rather than a process or product; two out of the three of these are good ideas.
The validation of the freshman composition course is a noble endeavor. As Linderman points out, it is often a dumping ground for new teachers and a place where new students find out whether or not they will be continuing toward a post-secondary degree. Liderman states that one of the opinions driving these two previous actions is that the current population of students possesses an extraordinary number of poor writers. As Rebecca proved so clearly, a large number of the population has always been comprised of poor writers; claiming that these students are simply too terrible to teach is not the answer, nor is dumping them on unproven teachers to weed through. The class itself must be altered to meet the needs of the students.
One of the ways Linderman claims composition instruction can be improved is by eliminating literature from the classes. Wow. (it’s a fragment, I know.) Her reasoning seems to make sense; students need to master writing before they are introduced to literary analysis, but what are they going to talk and write about? Now I know what was said in class; they read wonderfully crafted essays and beautifully written peer work. I love reading, and I love writing, and I would fall on my pencil if all I had to read were these dry, nonfiction deserts of fun. I can only imagine the horror a freshman, who has none of the love for reading and writing I have, going through a class with nothing enjoyable to read.
Linderman’s other solution is an obvious one; find a middle ground between Elbow and Bartholomae. Linderman’s “system” works by maintaining a balance between personal expression and academic rule. For example, rather than focusing only on “forms” and “’correctness’” at the word or sentence level,” or looking at the “most important text is students writing,” Linderman states that “’good writing’ requires making effective choices in juggling demands of task, language, rhetoric, and audience.” It is this idea of “juggling” that makes Linderman’s idea sound appealing to me. Rather than an either/or system, she enables her classes to pick the best from either side to fit their needs.
The validation of the freshman composition course is a noble endeavor. As Linderman points out, it is often a dumping ground for new teachers and a place where new students find out whether or not they will be continuing toward a post-secondary degree. Liderman states that one of the opinions driving these two previous actions is that the current population of students possesses an extraordinary number of poor writers. As Rebecca proved so clearly, a large number of the population has always been comprised of poor writers; claiming that these students are simply too terrible to teach is not the answer, nor is dumping them on unproven teachers to weed through. The class itself must be altered to meet the needs of the students.
One of the ways Linderman claims composition instruction can be improved is by eliminating literature from the classes. Wow. (it’s a fragment, I know.) Her reasoning seems to make sense; students need to master writing before they are introduced to literary analysis, but what are they going to talk and write about? Now I know what was said in class; they read wonderfully crafted essays and beautifully written peer work. I love reading, and I love writing, and I would fall on my pencil if all I had to read were these dry, nonfiction deserts of fun. I can only imagine the horror a freshman, who has none of the love for reading and writing I have, going through a class with nothing enjoyable to read.
Linderman’s other solution is an obvious one; find a middle ground between Elbow and Bartholomae. Linderman’s “system” works by maintaining a balance between personal expression and academic rule. For example, rather than focusing only on “forms” and “’correctness’” at the word or sentence level,” or looking at the “most important text is students writing,” Linderman states that “’good writing’ requires making effective choices in juggling demands of task, language, rhetoric, and audience.” It is this idea of “juggling” that makes Linderman’s idea sound appealing to me. Rather than an either/or system, she enables her classes to pick the best from either side to fit their needs.
Ken Bruffee: Peer Tutor to the Masses
It seemed as though Bruffee’s major concerns were with the ideas of socially constructed knowledge and peer tutoring as collaborative learning. Bruffee began exploring these ideas in the 1970’s when he observed the current writing centers and found them to be lacking.
Before looking at “what” Bruffee wanted to do with the writing centers, an examination of “why” will clarify his actions. Bruffee saw knowledge as socially constructed; therefore, for students to go gain knowledge, they have to connect themselves with a discourse community that validates what knowledge is. As Kuhn put it, “Knowledge is not what individuals believe, but rather what groups and knowledge communities believe.” Bruffee saw these writing centers as an excellent opportunity to establish discourse communities that would appear welcoming to students who were new to the academy and seeking access to “knowledge.”
The problem with the writing centers, as Bruffee saw it, was at the time they were simply an extension of the classroom, where students were uncomfortable and not seen as participants, but rather students to be talked at. Though the writing centers were staffed by “students,” the power structure was the same as that of the classroom. Bruffee’s solution was to decentralize the power structure of the writing center and make it as student centered as possible. He began by staffing the centers with real students. These students were charged with facilitating discuss, rather than delivering “the answer.” Bruffee argued that this discussion-style approach would lead the students to bring out higher level concerns than they would if they were simply going to a superior for the right answer.
Before looking at “what” Bruffee wanted to do with the writing centers, an examination of “why” will clarify his actions. Bruffee saw knowledge as socially constructed; therefore, for students to go gain knowledge, they have to connect themselves with a discourse community that validates what knowledge is. As Kuhn put it, “Knowledge is not what individuals believe, but rather what groups and knowledge communities believe.” Bruffee saw these writing centers as an excellent opportunity to establish discourse communities that would appear welcoming to students who were new to the academy and seeking access to “knowledge.”
The problem with the writing centers, as Bruffee saw it, was at the time they were simply an extension of the classroom, where students were uncomfortable and not seen as participants, but rather students to be talked at. Though the writing centers were staffed by “students,” the power structure was the same as that of the classroom. Bruffee’s solution was to decentralize the power structure of the writing center and make it as student centered as possible. He began by staffing the centers with real students. These students were charged with facilitating discuss, rather than delivering “the answer.” Bruffee argued that this discussion-style approach would lead the students to bring out higher level concerns than they would if they were simply going to a superior for the right answer.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Booth and Burns: Guys I Wouldn’t Mind To Drink a Beer With
As possibly the last person to post this week, I would like to agree that Dr. Burns was a most enjoyable presenter. I will return to him, but first I will dispense with Mr. Booth, as Dr. Burns referred to him. It appeared that Booth’s was very similar to Kinneavy in that, both were concerned with applying “rhetoric as a coordinating force for unity” within composition.
Dr. Burns began by focusing on Booth’s wish to “dust off the poor reputation of rhetoric.” This seemed to me a monumental undertaking. I am certainly not a person who was educated was a strong background in the history of rhetoric, and even I have an overtly negative connotation when the word is lightly tossed around. Booth goes about this face life by focusing defining rhetoric as a quest for effective communication, rather than persuasive speech or writing.
By far the most appealing concept that Dr. Burns presented about Booth was his text The Rhetoric of Fiction. The very idea is both obvious, and yet so rarely addressed. When one thinks of great rhetorical works, one usually thinks of nonfiction (yes, I used the pronoun one twice). However, it only seems logical that works of fiction would also contain elements that influence the reader’s view of the world. I thought this concept fit well with what Shaynee brought in regarding Bizzell; both theorists are concerned with connections between culture and rhetoric. It appears that they are both presenting that idea that one’s native discourse communities can be expanded without direct interaction.
While the Booth presentation was interesting, the real treats were the side stories and pop quizzes. Even though I was one of the people with my eyes down and my head ducked when he asked us about rhetoric and language arts, I felt I the experience was positive and enlightening. Dr. Burns’ stories regarding his technical work were also entertaining and provided a new angle to integrate into class discussions that begin with the question: “When am I going to need to know this?” As good as the discussion was, the people that went to dinner after class received the best look at an individual who has made composition his life’s work. I was pleased that a man who had clearly done so much could be so approachable and humorous. I hope he is able to travel to see us again before I am finished with the program.
Dr. Burns began by focusing on Booth’s wish to “dust off the poor reputation of rhetoric.” This seemed to me a monumental undertaking. I am certainly not a person who was educated was a strong background in the history of rhetoric, and even I have an overtly negative connotation when the word is lightly tossed around. Booth goes about this face life by focusing defining rhetoric as a quest for effective communication, rather than persuasive speech or writing.
By far the most appealing concept that Dr. Burns presented about Booth was his text The Rhetoric of Fiction. The very idea is both obvious, and yet so rarely addressed. When one thinks of great rhetorical works, one usually thinks of nonfiction (yes, I used the pronoun one twice). However, it only seems logical that works of fiction would also contain elements that influence the reader’s view of the world. I thought this concept fit well with what Shaynee brought in regarding Bizzell; both theorists are concerned with connections between culture and rhetoric. It appears that they are both presenting that idea that one’s native discourse communities can be expanded without direct interaction.
While the Booth presentation was interesting, the real treats were the side stories and pop quizzes. Even though I was one of the people with my eyes down and my head ducked when he asked us about rhetoric and language arts, I felt I the experience was positive and enlightening. Dr. Burns’ stories regarding his technical work were also entertaining and provided a new angle to integrate into class discussions that begin with the question: “When am I going to need to know this?” As good as the discussion was, the people that went to dinner after class received the best look at an individual who has made composition his life’s work. I was pleased that a man who had clearly done so much could be so approachable and humorous. I hope he is able to travel to see us again before I am finished with the program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
