Teaching Writing Is Your Job
by Nate Kreuter
(note last line)
-
Showing posts with label Summer Seminar at RIC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Summer Seminar at RIC. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Atlantic on Writing
Great Writing Comes Out of Great Ideas
We can certainly all agree that if you want students to learn to write well, you have to start by asking them to write. Looking broadly across the U.S., this will require a major change. The high-stakes tests that drive curricula in most states require very little writing, and that in turn has driven writing out of many classrooms. The National Assessment of Educational Progress reported earlier this month that in 2011, 40 to 41 percent of public school students at grades 8 and 12 were given less than a page of writing homework in a typical week. In fact some 14 percent of 12th graders reported being asked to do no writing for homework at all.
In our own studies, we found that roughly 80 percent of the assignments students complete do not require them to compose text. Instead, they are asked to fill in blanks, copy notes, or choose among multiple-choice responses. Such activities may help them remember specific content, but they do not help them learn to do anything interesting--that is, to explore ideas that matter. And they certainly don't help them learn to write.
---
Many of the things that contributed to success in the schools we studied also seem to be present in New Dorp.
First, there was strong support and leadership from the school administration. Writing has to be high on a school-wide agenda.
Second, and closely related, teachers were involved in initiatives that went beyond their own classrooms. In our studies, the sources for these initiatives varied widely, from the National Writing Project, to collaborations with local universities, to state-sponsored professional development projects. The dedicated teacher standing in front of her own classroom, however stimulating and exciting, is not enough to transform achievement for a school as a whole.
Third, teachers became part of professional learning communities, working together, sharing ideas, gathering information, and changing curriculum and instruction in response to what they were learning. Such approaches build school-wide capacity by honoring the knowledge and experience that teachers bring with them. And they also recognize that there is no simple script, no silver bullet, that will improve student achievement. Instead, they require consistent emphases across the school, evolving over time in response to students' needs and accomplishments.
Fourth, there was a recognition that writing is tied closely to thinking about new material, and requires tools and strategies that can and should be taught. These may be as formulaic as the structure of a five-paragraph theme, or as open-ended as using sentence starters (because, although, if) to build arguments. They may include turn-taking cues to draw readers into productive discussion ("I agree/disagree...because," "I have something to add"). The point is that these are tools, not ends in themselves. Once students have learned to use them, instruction can focus elsewhere.
Finally -- and this is where I think Peg Tyre's article may lead us somewhat astray -- the most effective writing programs are able to embed what is required by high stakes tests and then move beyond to a much richer vision of curriculum and instruction. This is necessary whether the tests are those currently in place in most states, or the new ones being developed for the Common Core. Argument and exposition are important skills, but they build upon and incorporate the richness of the narratives that give most children their first opportunities to write (and talk) at length.
We can certainly all agree that if you want students to learn to write well, you have to start by asking them to write. Looking broadly across the U.S., this will require a major change. The high-stakes tests that drive curricula in most states require very little writing, and that in turn has driven writing out of many classrooms. The National Assessment of Educational Progress reported earlier this month that in 2011, 40 to 41 percent of public school students at grades 8 and 12 were given less than a page of writing homework in a typical week. In fact some 14 percent of 12th graders reported being asked to do no writing for homework at all.
In our own studies, we found that roughly 80 percent of the assignments students complete do not require them to compose text. Instead, they are asked to fill in blanks, copy notes, or choose among multiple-choice responses. Such activities may help them remember specific content, but they do not help them learn to do anything interesting--that is, to explore ideas that matter. And they certainly don't help them learn to write.
---
Many of the things that contributed to success in the schools we studied also seem to be present in New Dorp.
First, there was strong support and leadership from the school administration. Writing has to be high on a school-wide agenda.
Second, and closely related, teachers were involved in initiatives that went beyond their own classrooms. In our studies, the sources for these initiatives varied widely, from the National Writing Project, to collaborations with local universities, to state-sponsored professional development projects. The dedicated teacher standing in front of her own classroom, however stimulating and exciting, is not enough to transform achievement for a school as a whole.
Third, teachers became part of professional learning communities, working together, sharing ideas, gathering information, and changing curriculum and instruction in response to what they were learning. Such approaches build school-wide capacity by honoring the knowledge and experience that teachers bring with them. And they also recognize that there is no simple script, no silver bullet, that will improve student achievement. Instead, they require consistent emphases across the school, evolving over time in response to students' needs and accomplishments.
Fourth, there was a recognition that writing is tied closely to thinking about new material, and requires tools and strategies that can and should be taught. These may be as formulaic as the structure of a five-paragraph theme, or as open-ended as using sentence starters (because, although, if) to build arguments. They may include turn-taking cues to draw readers into productive discussion ("I agree/disagree...because," "I have something to add"). The point is that these are tools, not ends in themselves. Once students have learned to use them, instruction can focus elsewhere.
Finally -- and this is where I think Peg Tyre's article may lead us somewhat astray -- the most effective writing programs are able to embed what is required by high stakes tests and then move beyond to a much richer vision of curriculum and instruction. This is necessary whether the tests are those currently in place in most states, or the new ones being developed for the Common Core. Argument and exposition are important skills, but they build upon and incorporate the richness of the narratives that give most children their first opportunities to write (and talk) at length.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Core beliefs
- Quantity: students must write a lot of words--ideally in frequent low stakes ways which don't feel onerous to them or you, which can be assessed quickly, if at all, and which add up to a significant portion of students grade (20-30 percent).
- Public: writing must be public and it's presence must be made visible in your course on a daily basis. Low stakes writing should be shared frequently and high stakes writing should be as well.
- Course management system: in order to accomplish 1 & 2, as frequently as possible and ideally all the time writing must be done in digitally, by using the CMS. (this means that laptops should be encouraged in class and frequent trips to writing labs should be taken.
- Class time: class time should be allocated to ACTIVITY--lecture is just one kind of activity and should not be the primary activity of class time. Activities which engage students in writing-related activities (individual writing, group/collaborative writing, peer-review, discusion of student texts--low stakes and high) should far outweigh the activity of lecture.
- peer review: all major or high stakes writing should be peer-reviewed multiple times/drafts before it is handed in for a grade.
Teaching writing effectively means adopting a student (as opposed to a content) centered orientation towards the classroom. You are there to teach students how to KNOW and to DO things. Knowing and doing are equally important. Effective student-centered instructors develop a repertoire of strategies and tools for structuring classroom activity to facilitate knowing and doing. They are constantly adapting their practice to expand the range of strategies and tools they deploy to accomplish their objectives. Communications technologies are key tools in student-centered teaching.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
SSTW Readings for Next Time
Selected Print Resources on Writing to Learn
Adams, P. (Ed.) (1973). Language in Thinking. Harmondsworth: Penguin Press.
Applebee, A.N. (1985). Writing and Reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577-596.
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan Education.
Bruner, J. (1975). Language as an Instrument of Thought. In A. Davies (Ed.), Problems in language and learning. London: Heinemann.
Emig, J. ( 1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-28.
Forsman, S. (1985). Writing to Learn Means Learning to Think. In A. R. Gere (Ed.), Roots in the sawdust: Writing to learn across the disciplines (pp. 162-174). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Fulwiler, T. & Young, A. (1982). Introduction. In T. Fulwiler and A. Young (Eds.), Language connections: Writing and reading across the curriculum (pp. ix-xiii). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Herrington, A. (1981). Writing to Learn: Writing Across the Disciplines. College English, 43, 379-87.
Kiefer, K. (1990). An Alternative to Curricular Reform: Writing in the Natural Science/Engineering Curriculum. In Proceedings of the Core Across the Curriculum Conference (Keystone, Colorado, October 6-8, 1990). The American Association for the Advancement of Core Curriculum.
Knoblauch, C., & Brannon, L. (1983). Writing as Learning through the Curriculum. College English, 45, 465-74.
McLeod, S.H. (1989). Writing across the curriculum: The second stage, and beyond. College Composition and Communication 40,(3), 337-343.
Odell, L. (1980). The Process of Writing and the Process of Learning. College Composition and Communication, 36, 42-50.
Palmquist, M., Rodrigues, D., Kiefer, K., and Zimmerman, D. 1995. Enhancing the audience for writing across the curriculum: Housing WAC in a network-supported writing center. Computers and Composition 12, 335-353.
Parker, R. P. (1985). The Language across the Curriculum Movement: A Brief Overview and Bibliography. College Composition and Communication, 36, 173-177.
Parker, R. P., & Goodkin, V. (1987). The Consequences of Writing: Enhancing Learning in the Disciplines. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Russell, D.R. (1990). Writing Across the Curriculum in Historical Perspective: Toward a Social Interpretation. College English, 52, 52-73.
Walvoord, B.E. 1992. Getting started. In Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs, edited by S.H. McLeod and M. Soven. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wilkes, J. (1978). Science Writing: Who? What? How? English Journal, 67, 56-60.
Young, A., and Fulwiler, T. 1986. Writing across the disciplines: Research into practice. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Adams, P. (Ed.) (1973). Language in Thinking. Harmondsworth: Penguin Press.
Applebee, A.N. (1985). Writing and Reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577-596.
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan Education.
Bruner, J. (1975). Language as an Instrument of Thought. In A. Davies (Ed.), Problems in language and learning. London: Heinemann.
Emig, J. ( 1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-28.
Forsman, S. (1985). Writing to Learn Means Learning to Think. In A. R. Gere (Ed.), Roots in the sawdust: Writing to learn across the disciplines (pp. 162-174). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Fulwiler, T. & Young, A. (1982). Introduction. In T. Fulwiler and A. Young (Eds.), Language connections: Writing and reading across the curriculum (pp. ix-xiii). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Herrington, A. (1981). Writing to Learn: Writing Across the Disciplines. College English, 43, 379-87.
Kiefer, K. (1990). An Alternative to Curricular Reform: Writing in the Natural Science/Engineering Curriculum. In Proceedings of the Core Across the Curriculum Conference (Keystone, Colorado, October 6-8, 1990). The American Association for the Advancement of Core Curriculum.
Knoblauch, C., & Brannon, L. (1983). Writing as Learning through the Curriculum. College English, 45, 465-74.
McLeod, S.H. (1989). Writing across the curriculum: The second stage, and beyond. College Composition and Communication 40,(3), 337-343.
Odell, L. (1980). The Process of Writing and the Process of Learning. College Composition and Communication, 36, 42-50.
Palmquist, M., Rodrigues, D., Kiefer, K., and Zimmerman, D. 1995. Enhancing the audience for writing across the curriculum: Housing WAC in a network-supported writing center. Computers and Composition 12, 335-353.
Parker, R. P. (1985). The Language across the Curriculum Movement: A Brief Overview and Bibliography. College Composition and Communication, 36, 173-177.
Parker, R. P., & Goodkin, V. (1987). The Consequences of Writing: Enhancing Learning in the Disciplines. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Russell, D.R. (1990). Writing Across the Curriculum in Historical Perspective: Toward a Social Interpretation. College English, 52, 52-73.
Walvoord, B.E. 1992. Getting started. In Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs, edited by S.H. McLeod and M. Soven. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wilkes, J. (1978). Science Writing: Who? What? How? English Journal, 67, 56-60.
Young, A., and Fulwiler, T. 1986. Writing across the disciplines: Research into practice. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Summer Planning
Readings
Presentation 1: Writing Before College (Graham)
Presentation 2: A Summary of Four Longitudinal Studies on Writing Development During
Presentation 3: Error in College Writing (Lunsford/Lunsford)
College Years (Sommers/Saltz, Haswell, Curtis/Herrington, Stanford Study of Writing)
Presentation 4: What We Know About Plagiarism (Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices)
Presentation 5:
In Hesse’s section “On Academic Writing and Discourse Communities: A Primer” Hesse tells the story of the increasing specialization of the academy and the implications of this process for discourse. He argues that, whereas, once, the academy could be defined as a single discourse community with shared conventions for communication, since the latter part of the 19th century, colleges and universities have been comprised of multiple discourse communities, each of which have developed their own epistemologies and genres and conventions for communication.
Hesse identifies and challenges a number of commonly held assumptions:
Colleges and universities form a single coherent discourse community with conventions of communication that span all communities within the larger community.
Generalized writing courses, taught by those outside of specialized academic discourse communities, can prepare students to communicate effectively in such communities.
Truth or knowledge are discovered outside of or apart from rhetoric (writing is a matter of conveying content or that which has already been discovered)
What interests/suprises you about Hesse’s discussion of academic discourse communities and their conventions for communication and/or the way in which students learn to communicate in academic discourse communities? What questions does this passage raise for you? How can you connect it with your experience as a teacher, student, or scholar?
Bb: Primary Posts and Secondary posts
Blog
Morning Afternoon HW:
Day 1 Getting to know Each Other/Presentation 1: Writng Before College Reading: Hesse (1-6) & Bb Discussion Board Post Read “Making Writing Assignments, Especially Formal Ones” (15-17); Bb: Describe/brainstorm an assignment you have already taught and would like to revisit or one you would like to teach.
Day 2 Presentation 2: Longitudinal Studies on Writing Development During the College Years;
Presentation 1: Writing Before College (Graham)
Presentation 2: A Summary of Four Longitudinal Studies on Writing Development During
Presentation 3: Error in College Writing (Lunsford/Lunsford)
College Years (Sommers/Saltz, Haswell, Curtis/Herrington, Stanford Study of Writing)
Presentation 4: What We Know About Plagiarism (Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices)
Presentation 5:
In Hesse’s section “On Academic Writing and Discourse Communities: A Primer” Hesse tells the story of the increasing specialization of the academy and the implications of this process for discourse. He argues that, whereas, once, the academy could be defined as a single discourse community with shared conventions for communication, since the latter part of the 19th century, colleges and universities have been comprised of multiple discourse communities, each of which have developed their own epistemologies and genres and conventions for communication.
Hesse identifies and challenges a number of commonly held assumptions:
Colleges and universities form a single coherent discourse community with conventions of communication that span all communities within the larger community.
Generalized writing courses, taught by those outside of specialized academic discourse communities, can prepare students to communicate effectively in such communities.
Truth or knowledge are discovered outside of or apart from rhetoric (writing is a matter of conveying content or that which has already been discovered)
What interests/suprises you about Hesse’s discussion of academic discourse communities and their conventions for communication and/or the way in which students learn to communicate in academic discourse communities? What questions does this passage raise for you? How can you connect it with your experience as a teacher, student, or scholar?
Bb: Primary Posts and Secondary posts
Blog
Morning Afternoon HW:
Day 1 Getting to know Each Other/Presentation 1: Writng Before College Reading: Hesse (1-6) & Bb Discussion Board Post Read “Making Writing Assignments, Especially Formal Ones” (15-17); Bb: Describe/brainstorm an assignment you have already taught and would like to revisit or one you would like to teach.
Day 2 Presentation 2: Longitudinal Studies on Writing Development During the College Years;
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Resources on Disciplinary Writing
Resources on Disciplinary Writing
http://wac.colostate.edu/bib/index.cfm?categoryid=8
Overviews:
Bazerman, C. (1981). "What Written Knowledge Does: Three Examples of Academic Discourse." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 361-87.
Bazerman, C. & J. Paradis (eds.) 1991. Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Joliffe, D. (ed.) 1988. Writing in Academic Disciplines ( = Advances in Writing Research 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Myers, G. 1985. The Social Construction of Two Biologists' Proposals". Written Communication 2: 219-245.
MacDonald S.P. (1994). Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Carbondale and Edwardsville: SIUP Press.
Faigley and Hansen, K. 1985. Learning to Write in the Social Sciences." CCC 36:140-49.
Vande Kopple, W. 1992. "Noun Phrases and the Style of Scientific Discourse." In S.P. Witte, N. Nakadate and R.D. Cherry (eds.), A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on written discourse in the honor of James Kinneavy. Carbondale, IL: SIUP Press.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Summer Seminar Schedule
Morning:
10:30-11am: Small Groups, share
11-12am: Large Group, share
12-1pm: Lunch
Afternoon:
1-1:30: Reading
1:
Syllabus
Day 1: CWB, Ch. 1
Day 2: CWB, Ch. 2
Day 3: CWB, Ch. 3/4
Day 4: CWB, Ch. 5
Day 5: CWB, Ch. 6/Epilogue
Lindemann on teaching writing
Start the week off with a PPT of my own (or Steve Graham's)--big picture about writing
Bazerman, C. (1981). "What Written Knowledge Does: Three Examples of Academic Discourse." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 361-87.
Swales/Johns (WAW)
Lunsford/Lunsford (error)
Sommers/Saltz
Rose on blockers
Moore Howard on Plagiarism
Perhaps a time for faculty to sort of hunt, read--articles, journals, books, chapters on writing in their own discipline--helping them become resourceful about how to teach writing in their discipline and what makes their discipline unique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)