Introversion and Authentic Writing

The first blog post that I read, "The Energy Cost and the Power of Empathy," came from the becoming radical.  The article addressed how introverted students have an "energy cost" associated with the collaborative, project-based learning environments that most schools have implemented.  The post also urges teachers to be empathetic towards introverts and understand their need to "recharge."  I really liked the author's iPhone analogy.  He described how, just like an iPhone whose background apps drain battery life, an introvert's energy level is drained by things that cannot be seen on the surface.  He also related that to sufferers of anxiety, who have a constant sense of impending doom that drains them from the inside.  I really appreciated this post because I consider myself an introvert. In high school, I can remember being so exhausted at the end of every day from all of the social interaction and cooperative learning.  Now that I am older and in college, I have grown to like working with others, but when I was an introverted high school student having to work in groups in almost every class, I dreaded it.  I especially understood the point about asking students about their introversion.  Constant comments like "you're so quiet!" or "why are you sitting alone?" can seem harmless, but for a young introvert, it just further depletes their energy to have to explain their preferences to someone over and over.  When I was in school, many people said I was "quiet," which to me seemed like something negative.  Even though I went to a small school, I still felt that I was sometimes lost or hidden behind more extroverted students.  At conferences my parents would get many comments about how "quiet" and "well-behaved" I was, which is nice, but doesn't mean that I didn't need support sometimes.  I think it's important for teachers not to brush introverts off as students they "don't have to worry about," because they often have unique, but important needs.

The second blog post I read was called "School Writing vs. Authentic Writing," from writers who care.  It echoed a lot of what we have been talking about all semester.  The part that I really was drawn to was the mention of social media writing.  I think that some teachers and parents hold the assumption that students "can't" or "don't" write anymore.  What they do not understand is that students have grown up in a social-media centered time, and the blogs, tweets, emails, Facebook posts, etc. that they make every day ARE a form of writing.  The author of this blog argues that social media writing is real writing because it is written for an authentic audience.  He goes on to describe how school writing is focused on the teacher as the only audience, and that any clarifying questions about the writing are answered with 'yes' or 'no' as determined by the teacher only.  In authentic writing, the teacher is a guide.  He/she is there to give advice because he/she is not the only audience and therefore cannot have the final say.  I loved how the author talked about authority, meaning that the writer (author) has the ultimate authority over their piece.

I chose these blogs because they both discussed interesting topics and put a new spin on them.  The first post spoke to me personally, and reflected a population of students that is often forgotten about.  The second really made some great points about a topic we have discussed a lot in this class, and I really liked how the author incorporated social media, which is something unavoidable in the modern age.


Here are the links:

https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/category/introversion/

https://writerswhocare.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/school-writing-vs-authentic-writing/

6+1 Trait Writing

I really appreciated the 6+1 Trait Writing model that was featured in the reading.   I felt that it was a very holistic approach to assessing student writing.  The traits themselves embody all of the most important aspects of good writing.  I liked how they were more on the general side so that as a teacher, you are able to pick out some important qualifiers for each trait that can be tailored to your students.  For example, if your students are struggling with using weak verbs like "said" too often, under word choice you could say "Paper uses strong verbs" or something similar.  I also liked the addition of Presentation as a trait, because when I have made assignment sheets/rubrics in the past, I've typically lumped the presentation aspect into conventions, but I like how it is separate here.  This way students will take the time to present their work in a professional way, and it is less likely to be an afterthought for them.  

Overall, I felt that the language that they used to describe each trait was very asset-based.  It rewards students for what is present, rather than deducting points because things are missing.  I think it is encouraging to student writers and considers aspects of the writing that are sometimes forgotten, but are still very important, such as voice and presentation.  

Gallagher and Christensen: Assessing Student Work

First, I have to say that I loved these three chapters.  Both authors are extremely inspirational and really demonstrate how their classrooms function.  In other classes, I have been told about the importance of meaningful writing and assignments, but have rarely seen what those look like in a real classroom.  I can definitely see myself referencing these texts over and over again when I become a teacher.

What I liked about the Gallagher chapter most was his "tenet" that teachers are not superman.  While reading his work, I loved all of the strategies he mentioned and truly admired him as a teacher, as well as his classroom.  However, I could not help but be overwhelmed by it all, especially when thinking about all of those strategies happening in the same classroom at the same time.  I liked that he said it was okay to fail at some things, and one of the golden lines I took from this chapter was "learning how to teach writing is a process itself"(p. 153).

I also really enjoyed his emphasis on mid-process grading.  It seems like a very obvious thing to do, but in my own experience in school, I almost never saw it in practice.  I also appreciated the "Golden Line" and "I Like..." activities, because they really ask the students to think positively about others' work as well as their own.  I think that Gallagher and Christensen both agree that "asset-based" language when looking at student writing is what keeps students engaged and excited about improving.  

Gallagher does a great job of using analogies that students would understand to help them recognize their own errors.  The football commentator analogy and color-coding were really interesting, and I think they would both be extremely effective, relatable, and manageable for students.  My biggest takeaways from this chapter were the grammar guides and independent correction sheets.  I can absolutely see myself using both of those in my classroom someday.  I think the grammar guides give students a way to take responsibility of their own learning, and they tailor the learning to meet individual needs.  I think as teachers we strive to tailor learning to individuals, but it can be overwhelming when their are hundreds of students to attend to.  The grammar guides and independent corrections sheets ask students to do the bulk of the work instead of forcing the teacher to come up with long grammar lessons that take time away from the writing process.

The Christensen chapters had some of the same principles as Gallagher's.  I especially was interested in the "patterns of error" that she talked about and I liked how she has the students discover and generate grammar rules for themselves.  Any opportunity to avoid handing out a worksheet or asking students to memorize a list of rules is going to be more genuine and meaningful for them as learners.  

As someone who finds Emergent Bilingual Education to be fascinating, I loved the section where she talked about conventions of the home language.  I had honestly never heard of the AAVE, but it was so eye-opening to realize that teachers (including myself) can be so quick to label student language/writing as wrong.  After reading this chapter, I agree that it is vital for teachers to understand their students' home language conventions, even on a basic level, to recognize how their writing is developing, and WHY they write in a certain way (when it deviates from Standard English).  I loved how she called these "logical errors,"  because even though they are errors, as they are incorrect in the context of Standard English, they are also logical, because they reflect translation from/understanding of a student's native language.  I noticed even in my personal life, that my boyfriend's father, who can only speak some English, will make grammatical errors in his speech often.  However these "errors" are very logical, because with my basic knowledge of Spanish, I can clearly see why he is making the error.  He follows the conventions of his language and translates them to English. 

Finally, I liked Christensen's description of grading as "wages" in the classroom, because that is exactly what they are.  I thought about how at work, most people do the requirements set by their specific boss to earn a wage and then forget about it once they go home.  When we do this in schools, students will simply find out what their specific teacher wants, do that for their "wage," and not think about their writing again.  We as teachers need to make the classroom a place for growth and improvement, and putting all of the emphasis on grading limits that growth.  

English Language Learning

Personally, I am extremely interested in teaching ELL's and look forward to all of the challenges and rewards that come along with it.  I admire people who are bilingual and as an English major, I understand how difficult the language can be.  I have been taking Spanish classes since I was in the 6th grade.  Interestingly, we always did a lot more writing than speaking in Spanish.  From the reading, it seemed like it is actually common for ELL's to do little to no writing, and mostly focus on simple reading and speaking exercises.  Because of the emphasis I had on writing, I feel much more confident writing in Spanish than I do speaking it.

With all of that being said, I love Fu's approach to teaching writing to ELL's.  It is unconventional, when you consider that most of the research and assumptions say ELL's should strive to think in English rather than their native language, and that their writing should reflect that.  I much prefer the concept of allowing students to write in a more scaffolded way, where they are able to write entirely in their native language, then with code-switching, then with inter-language, and finally in standard English.  I think that this approach is the epitome of the growth mindset.  Instead of focusing on students' deficits in the English language, you are able to embrace all of the advanced speaking, listening and writing skills they already possess in their native language (what he calls "funds of knowledge").  Instead of being labeled as "behind" or "bad" students, they are celebrated for being learners with the privilege of knowing and learning two languages.

I really liked the idea that it is okay for people to think in their native language.  The example he gave of the two teachers' writing was a clear indicator that allowing students to think in their native language produces stronger, more genuine writing, because you aren't limited to only the language you are proficient in.  It also saves student from the humiliation of being pulled aside to work on extremely low level activities and allows them to learn the same higher level content as their peers.


I think that the artifactual literacy would work really well with ELLs.  I am sure that many ELL students have artifacts from their native countries, or even from the US, that could help teachers gain insight into their culture.  It also relates to the idea of multiple literacies, which is important when you have a classroom of students who are not all at the same level of traditional English literacy.

The Politics of the Paragraph

I want to focus my response on the "The Politics of the Paragraph" article, because I thought that it was an extremely well written piece.  I was troubled by the opening example where Kenney describes how a student felt that she was a "crappy writer" just because her thoughts didn't fit into three clean paragraphs.  There is clearly a real problem with how we teach writing in our schools today.  Due to the added pressure of standardized testing, students' creativity and talent is stifled because teachers are forced to get all students to produce essentially the same work as everyone else to prove their "proficiency."  When I read the article I thought about how the PEAS formula seemed to get everyone to write coherently, but with little to no real substance.  In my own experience as a writer, I have never been asked to use any type of specific acronym or formula, but rather encouraged to get all my ideas out and then channel them into a structured and organized essay.  This approach is not perfect of course, but it reflects a different atmosphere, without the daunting presence of CCSS/standardized testing.
  Much like Kenney, I do believe that there are both pros and cons to using essay formulas.  It is nice to want to teach your students to be really engaged in their writing and inspire them to write authentically, but in our schools today, this isn't always possible.  Like Kenney brought up in the article, many of her colleagues want a clean, easy-to-implement solution to teaching writing, which she acknowledges as completely reasonable.  We all want students to love writing and love learning, but when faced with a standardized test, we also don't want them to fail.  It is a difficult balance, especially when it would really come down to changing the whole education system to not be so hyper-focued on test scores.  I wholeheartedly agree with Kenney that any type of formula used in writing is going to limit students' creativity.  There is a reason that writing is considered an art form, because good writing can't be boiled down to a formula or acronym.

Poetry

I really enjoyed both the Christensen chapter and the short article about poetry in the classroom.  I realized when reading these that I was never asked throughout my entire K-12 career to write a poem other than a haiku.  I can remember feeling that teachers were scared to assign poetry writing because "not everyone likes poetry."  I really wish I would have been pushed more to explore poetry writing in my own school experience.  In the Christensen chapter, poetry became therapeutic and connected the students in ways that other types of activities could not. I especially enjoyed the part of the chapter where Christensen talks about how poetry writing improved her students' grammar tremendously.  If my students were struggling with grammar, my first instinct would be to look for some handouts or worksheets to help them practice.  Using poetry is an unconventional solution to getting students to understand grammar in context, which is one of the most important and valuable tools they can have as writers and lifelong learners.

I also loved how the article described poetry as "the space between language and experience," and the example she gave of how simply telling her husband the story of the elderly couple could not accurately convey her experience.  I had never thought of thinking about poetry this way, but it really captures why poetry is so important.  Simple language does not always do a sensory experience justice, and that is where poetry comes in.  It can make a person feel something as if it happened to them using metaphors, imagery, etc.

Cyberactivism and Critical Media Literacy

These readings were pretty difficult to get through, and I responded more to the Critical Media Literacy chapter than the Cyberactivism chapter.  In the Critical Media chapter, the author talked about students who studied the 2000 Democratic National Convention and the media coverage that surrounded it.  The students' findings, that the media portrayed actively engaged youth as dangerous and violent, reminded me of the deficit ideology we studied in class.  The media's narrative on youth is structurally flawed, because if they choose to be active citizens involved in something like a presidential election (even peacefully), their media coverage focuses on weapons and violence rather than the issues they are passionate about.  On the other hand, if they are not actively engaged in the voting process, their is a media narrative that presents them as lazy, uninvolved, uneducated, and uninterested in politics.  In either case, it is impossible for them to be presented positively.  I think that is where critical media literacy comes into play.  It is important for students to learn that, when they need to gather information on a topic in the news, they should avoid mainstream media and instead look for less biased websites like those suggested in the chapter.   It becomes dangerous when students only rely on mainstream media for information, because they develop ideas about the world that are skewed, as well as ideas about themselves from certain media narratives.  As teachers, critical media literacy should be something we give as much attention to as the traditional critical literacies that we use in our classrooms every day.