Baby Talk

When my daughter was born I read a lot of parenting books and articles; some good, some a waste of time. But now, 22 years later, I still remember one article's advice that stood out and made perfect sense. Its advice was to NOT use "baby-talk" when speaking to your child. "Just talk normally," was the suggestion. Use the language your child will use as they grow into adulthood, the earlier you start the better. Otherwise, the author concluded, your child will have to learn another language when they go out into the big, wild world. (Paraphrasing here)
All this came back to me while reading Peters' Five Ways article. Why not begin with the concepts  of literary criticism, such as New Criticism, Structuralism, psychoanalysis, etc? The "adult talk"?
Most of the "ways" Peters describes could easily fall into one of the standard academic theories. Introducing students to the theories earlier will give them the language they'll need in future studies, regardless of their chosen disciplines. In other words, skip the baby talk.

As to Salvatori's article, I think that teaching reading in the teaching of composition is an effective way for students to learn. This article was great, but I have two questions:
Is there a right and a wrong answer in this method?
If so, how should we guide our students to the right answers?

Blog #11: Ranting about Mutnick and Lamos

Okay. Today's issue is brought to you by the letters B and W.  Basic Writers. I am forced to ask the question - are these approaches to teaching BW a joke? Ha. Ha. While I understand a need for assessment and identification for Basic Writers, I don't see the rhyme or reason behind this....this. "Error-Centered Analysis"? God. Albeit a good point was made, that various groups worry about "marginalizing" BW. But, isn't that what they already are? I feel that this is no different than saying, "those aren't homeless people! they're just down-on-their-luck-billionaires!". No. Just like giving every child a participation trophy is bad for competition, acting like BW are on the same field as AW (Advanced Writers) is not only unfair to the advanced party, but to the basics as well. I wouldn't want to be held to a standard I wasn't prepared to reach - that's not right. While BW need attention, we should focus on getting them through that stage and slowly working elements of AW into that pedagogy; kind of like working the flour into a mixture when baking a cake - add a little bit at a time and stir it in, or you'll fuck up the whole cake.

Thoughts/reflections on my last blog to possibly use in my teaching philosophy

Looking back on my last blog makes me think more about teaching in the future.  It's not that I don't believe in what I am saying, rather I don't know how to market a more free thinking teaching philosophy to a potential job opportunity without a solid structure laid out for them.  I very much believe in having an general idea for the semester, but then amending it based on what the current class needs as a whole.  For example, if English 99-25 has grammar down no problem, but lacks reading comprehension skills, and English 99-26 can comprehend, but not write, I personally would change my syllabus to match their specific needs instead of following along the set path I said we'd take on day one.   My question for myself I guess is: How do I market myself as this type of teacher? Will i land a job with this type of philosophy?

Blog #10: Bazerman and Berthoff

Bazerman:  I really liked this article. I agree with the current "Independent Self/Original Voice" schematic for writing. I also enjoyed the notion of "writing as a contribution to an ongoing, written conversation". I believe that all academic writing - possibly even leisure writing - should in some way add to the knowledge pool, not just report on it or merely agree or disagree. Another excellent point was that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "paraphrase encourages precise understanding of individual terms and statements; the act of translating thoughts from one set makes the student need to focus and think about what they've read". I always tell my students that comprehension is tantamount to being able to read - and this article drives that point home.

Berthoff: This one I am ambivalent about. While there are usable points here they seem to lack depth. I didn't really like the ripped-off Rhetorical Triangle, and instead I built a Rhetorical Bridge for her which does a better job of explaining her Word, Referent, and Reference. It did raise a question in me however, if we're going to make writing in texts taboo for the majority of a student's life, just to tell them to mark a book up with annotations in college - why not find a middle ground that prepares them earlier? This would also encourage the note-taking habits that will be critical to college learning. If students can practice focusing on the content when they're younger - as opposed to just answering teacher-pointed questions - then they should be able to do better, in theory.

Conversations with Text

I really enjoyed this essay, especially the content around "interconnectedness" and the prospect of using it in the classroom although I wonder about introducing it to first year comp students. Too much too soon. Perhaps using Parker's 5 ways first?
The biggest benefit of Salvatori's approach is that I can see how it could cause students to become better readers and writers. The type of responding she advocates calls for close readings (hello New Criticism) which can lead students to see how a text works or makes meaning. These insights will stay with them while they compose their own essays, arguments. Hopefully.

Peirce

Within the first few sentences I did not like how he mentions that students that pass the quiz only could enter a group discussion. I understand it is online but what if some students actually gain a better understanding of the material if they were a part of a discussion more so than they would by just reading the material on their own. I understand that it would be after the fact but either way, why not allow them a different style opportunity for learning. It seems like a negative reaction from a teacher. I do like having small groups with different questions for discussion though. My professor does that now and it works because then we all share to the class and each group gains new information and nothing is being repeated throughout the class discussion.

"Students who experience a gap in their knowledge will seek to fill it."

I really like that but I think it works half the time. A student might half ass their research just to make sure it kind of sounds like what they are saying but I would still do this in a class nonetheless. Challenging their beliefs as the article explains is a great way to accomplish this because they will spend time searching why people have opposing views, etc.

Lindemann Chapter 15

This chapter was great.  I do have some questions and comments though. So she says that knowing more about teaching doesn't necessarily make you a more effective teacher.  I really like this because I personally believe in a more "free" thinking environment in the class room. I am not a huge fan of structure because i feel it restricts creativity.  I feel that once we start adding all of this extra knowledge and theory about teaching, the class room becomes too scientific, and that in my opinion makes the teaching effectiveness go down.  Our goal should be to make students intelligent readers which I personally feel means that when working with a text 1 + 1 wont always equal 2. To them, with their reading it could mean red, or any other crazy variation as long as they have an argument to support what they are saying.  

Extra Blog on Clustering

So this blog needs some background information before i get into it.  My younger brother is an aspiring author, and he has had some serious writes block on the novel he is working on lately.

Ok, so I must confess when we were learning about clustering and the writing process I was like "This is silly I don't think I'll ever use it!" On Friday he was telling me about how he's stuck on his writing, and for what ever reason I kept thinking about "Clustering."

I decided that i would explain to him what it was (he had never heard of it) and show him how to do it.  I got a text the next morning from him telling me that he had made a break through.

So what's the importance of this little story?  I learned not to dismiss a style of learning that doesn't work for me because it worked for my brother.  This was enlightening on how students all learn differently.

Lindemann in ch15 mentioned that "How we teach is shaped by whom and what we teach" I agree with Lindemann 50% because I have another view which is" How we teach is shaped by what the students know and what they want to know.
Another thing that I want to add this time is a question which is " Do you think that telling your students about your teaching philosophy is considered as a good idea? If so, do you think this will affect their writing if they are against ( disagree with )your philosophy?

Blog #9: Teaching Philosophy pt 2 "Musings"

Okay, I'm going to just dump this:  I was considering what I would put down on my teaching philosophy. I figure I would be talking about things I believe would be best in the classroom when I teach, and what I have learned thus far that has really stuck with me. However, when I consider teaching things like the Pentad, the importance of discourse as a form of power through the teachings of Michel Foucault, the importance of understanding the rhetorical triangle as it applies to everyday life - I came to the (obvious?) realization that these things are more useful at the 16 - college age group. While Rhetoric and Composition can be implemented in all avenues and in some ways taught at any level, I have found a hurdle: I'm trying to teach these advanced (based on their knowledge base) theories and techniques to children. I like teaching middle school. I feel I would best benefit by either changing my teaching philosophy so as to cater it to this preference or simply shift my perceived attention to a high school senior English class. I believe that this might be the only way to mold an applicable philosophy because everything I have been considering researching so far has been to benefit my students. I think I need to start thinking about another path or a way to take all I have learned and make it work for junior high. IDK - but that's why we're here, right?

What's my objective

I was surprised that Lindemann didn't spend more time on the area of objectives in Ch 13. I have found that starting with that element is the best way to begin drafting assignments. Asking: what, exactly, do I need students to demonstrates? What learning, what skill? Beginning there I then consider the level of cognition I need them to perform at. Bloom's Taxonomy is what I use to make sure I am not assigning a task at a level students may not have reached yet. There are verbs attached to each level which is very helpful. This method is a hold over from my public school teaching days where not being able to state a complete (and standard-based) objective was a huge no-no.

Purpose-verb in Lindemann CH13

Lindemann chapter 13 touches on some fantastic points about developing writing assignments.  A part of the text that stood out to me was on page 218 when she writes, “An assignment usually reveals its purpose in one crucial verb, analyze in this case, and much of the challenge in drafting effective assignments involves making the purpose verb clear […] Keeping an assignment short allows the purpose-verb to stand out” (218).  This is an aspect of prompt writing I have never thought about.  I’ve always just stuck a prompt and the board without thinking about the words analyzes or discuss. I mean I have used them in my prompt writing, but only by happy accident it would seem.  This chapter has brought the importance of this purpose-verb to my attention.  

I read the teaching philosophy 2, but I have some criticism for it.
I did not agree with the writer in his saying " I would encourage my students to do the same when writing and thinking.  Some of the methods I would encourage them to try is to use unconventional writing forms and language, such as slang, native language, poetry, journalistic writing, in addition to standard English and forms. "

I think if the writer write in slang, he restrict his writing for his nation, not for international readers. For example, I can understand any writing in English that has written in academic words but I can't understand any writing that has written in a slang words. Also, I disagree because the writer want to make the writing skill as the speaking skill by using the slang words in writing. The writer think his way is kind of freedom he give it to his students but in my opinion this is not freedom, this is undesirable indulgence.
I know that I do not have the right to criticize the writer in his philosophy but I have the right as a reader to express objection politely.

Teaching Philosophy

My teaching philosophy centers on the atmosphere I wish to create in the classroom; one that fosters creativity, risk taking, and trust. Big goals, I know.

 I think about myself as a young student, shy and intimidated by the other students who I felt were smarter than me. I now understand that what I really believed was that my voice didn't matter. "No one cares what I think" I told myself. Or, "I can't say that! I'll sound stupid. Get laughed at." These are thoughts I want to eliminate in my classroom and my teaching philosophy should reflect that in some way.
I'll be reviewing  the articles on invention, workshop, and feedback for guidance.

Blog 8: Teaching Philosophy (part 1)

I was thinking about what my teaching philosophy would be. I also thought about how I teach my kids now, particularly focusing on comprehension - I teach middle school. I also prefer leading my students through discussion via the Socratic method. I also find that being more than just a stationary authoritarian at the head of a classroom works well (i.e. walking around the room and sitting in random chairs next to them). I also jotted a bunch of random phrases and buzzwords while in class last night: Peter Elbow; the notebook from class; teaching students that they should be "saying" something; Voice; Invention Techniques; Deciding between endless revisions for improvement or strict deadlines; explaining the difference in research & analysis and persuasive stance; and a few random things. Either way, I feel like my style will be highly involved as a teacher with a little bit of everything (in regards to what I have learned so far).

Hi everyone,, I hope that all of us enjoyed in the spring break.
I want to say that actually I dis agree with Mathison that people can learn rhetorical Analogy through the facebook. My reason is that because people in the face book tend to use simple, slang words and some time cut the letters words to write fast. So, to teach rhetorical Analogy through facebook I personally do not think it is a good way.