Writing from the heart

The E110 class has helped to clarify many concerns about approach and focus within a writing class.  Always intrigued by the phrase “healed by the Word,” this syllabus looks closely at what the “word” is and how it might “heal.”  The syllabus follows the growth of language from the spoken word to the final written product that carries an essence of ourselves beyond ourselves, and in so doing we learn to grow towards others.  Without language, we cannot develop, so studying the power of language and writing is a meta-cognitive approach to understanding how words and writing work and how to improve using such a gift.  Every student has such gifts within; they need only develop them.

Mary Kay Valentine’s syllabus

R6: The Power of Language to Inform

Victor Villanueva’s “For the Love of Language” speaks to my heart as a teacher of the English language. I too have struggled to find ways to teach why I love writing to my students. I want them to experience the same self-epiphanies that would come to me while writing and rewriting, the same sense of accomplishment of learning about a minute aspect of a field in great detail, and a clearer sense of what I believe about my realities as a result of close critical writing and research. Villanueva’s six principles within his classroom are mine too, most especially the first one that language, and not just writing, is ontological and epistemological. He describes writing as “a precise way (though no science) of ordering thought, of bringing to light muddied emotions and fragments of ideas, maybe even the means to producing ideas” (260).

For me, these abilities are the power of the “word,” and rhetoric is simply the means by which we start a dialogue with others about our “ordered thoughts,” “muddied emotions,” and “fragmented ideas” so that we may share and improve our own perspectives. Other people’s responses to what we write function as mirrors to ourselves, propelling us ever forward towards better self-understanding. So using peer-editing and peer discussion to develop the dialectical conversations within the classroom would further ideas and perspectives, new approaches. All of research, company or university driven, is focused on better self-understanding and improvement of processes, communities, bodies, societies, cultures, relationships, and ourselves.

Using readings (which are finalized writing processes) opens up the dialectical processes as students discuss the authors’ intentions, purposes, and approaches to share key ideas. The readings would function as places to begin thinking and act as “finalized” models for how others have shared their thinking. I would need to stress that the class readings did not come from the pen in their perfectly channeled finished forms. By analyzing the rhetoric within the reading, we can analyze the approach taken to share a particular idea and how a good, effective finished product looks.

Though analyzing finished writing pieces is helpful in showing the end result, the writing process itself is messy, chaotic, and constantly narrowing down the idea to its cleanest, clearest form, which is why I agree that teacher feedback should focus on what and how an idea is being shared, not necessarily “justifying a grade” (263), of which I am guilty. I have “conversations” in my comments, but those comments are usually three words: “develop” and “cut wordiness.” I do ask questions and offer my own thoughts, but when scoring the same research paper assignment for 65 hours, I feel like resorting to rubber “comment” stamps. The written marginal feedback is too overwhelming, and since I offer rewrites to improve grades, I always grade the assignments with feedback that explains why the paper did not get the “A” or “B” or lower.   I focus on what needs to be improved, not necessarily what they have done well, though I do try to give one meaningful positive comment before sharing the negative. Even then, students do not necessarily read the comments.  For years I have been wanting a better way to grade writing.

Having time to focus on writing and writing only in a class allows me to offer feedback on drafts with the other students without having to put a number on it, which then reinforces the idea that these writing drafts are works in progress and that rewrites are not only normal but required for good writing, that students are not writing for the “grade” but for the means to communicate a bit of themselves, and in so doing, see themselves better. I will not be responsible for revising my students’ drafts; they will be after we have opportunities to discuss what and how they have written and shared an idea.

Both Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs agree with writing as a means to learn. Their thematic focuses on exploring writing as writing will always produce good discussions because the analysis of how and what we say is always interesting. Possibly their class readings o writing could address the “Habits of Mind” as seen in the Framework for Success in College Writing published by the Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), the National Writing Project (NWP), and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), but such habits of mind as curiosity, openness, engagement, creativity, persistence, responsibility, flexibility, and meta-cognition, are mostly experienced not while reading but while composing.  If I can help students maintain these mindful habits, their writing experiences will bring them the experiences I have had that helped me to realize that more exists to me than I had imagined.

Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford, eds. First-Year Composition: From Theory to Practice. Parlor Press, 2014. Print.

 

 

R5: Meta-Cognitive assignments, composing and building awareness of audiences

While reading Alexander Reid’s commentary on writing, I nodded, “yes, yes. Writing is ontological.” To become a better writer one must write often in lots of contexts with an audience in which one has an affinity so as to be better motivated to write, for better writers are motivated writers. So true. Then I read Jody Shipka’s writing commentary and continued nodding “yes” as I read about her analogy that writing is like composing. Like the musician, one hears the inner music and then begins to form that music into themes, beginning with a hook, melodies, harmonies, building repetitions, intercutting and reconfiguring, reaching the climax, and ending with a resonance that lingers.

These skills of composing music from the inner ear to the final medium is the same as writing: an exploration of themes countered against and intertwined with melodies and disharmonies building together to an effective end that seems to resonate past the last word. Writing is composing, and requires an awareness of the whole self to see that writing is not a bunch of rules memorized and forms mastered that come together on paper but a process of exploring and shaping “melodies and harmonies” with “disharmonies” that stay within tightly controlled keys and themes for an audience of one or one million.

This composing analogy reinforces Reid’s beliefs that the writing never ends, just like the music. The writing continues, as he says for his professional writers, and that is true for the professionals. But most students in my E110 class or other writing class at the high school level will not plan on being professional writers. They must know how to read critically and express themselves coherently with academic tools, but they do not need to write into infinity. Writing more without meta-cognitive thought about the writing does not necessarily improve the writing; more writing just shows that they have more to say, not necessarily how better to say it.

So reading Jody Shipka’s examples of projects and assignments was refreshing as they focused on the meta-cognitive levels of thinking with simple assignments that had broad ramifications. She asked students to record every genre of writing they have ever done with great specificity so that students could become aware of how much writing they do. They are already writers. Then she asks them to record “This is How I learned to Read and Write,” again to develop awareness that they are writers continuing to improve skills. My favorite is to find six completely different mediums that focus on the same message or stereotype and analyze how these different literary mediums affect their audiences through their approaches. The project could easily be turned into a fun classroom activity as a group (I can increase the numbers of examples) that can lead into an excellent discussion about genres, audiences, approaches, and more. I loved that assignment. My only disagreement or difference in perspective with Jody Shipka is that this meta-cognitive understanding of writing begins not with the composing process, as Shipka states, but. I believe, with the study of language itself. Studying composition theories is wonderful, but only after the students have a good understanding of the nature of language. I believe students need a meta-cognitive awareness of words and their structures and how these structures limit their thinking if unaware of such structures.

By time I began reading Howard Tinberg, I was copying down example lesson plans for they work beautifully with developing a meta-cognitive sense of writing as an ontological tool: An essay of belief focuses on the power of writing to clarify consciously for oneself what one actually does believe. A profile of another after interviewing that person focuses on the key aspects or the interpretive thesis or “nut graf” of the person, which shows how writing helps to clarify new knowledge and its significance (particularly helpful when business managers must write up reviews). The trend paper, however, is awesome, for that paper requires personal insight, research for support, and ontological purpose for self and our society.

Because I mined Shipka’s and Tinberg’s commentaries for really good assignments that focus on the meta-cognitive nature of writing, I went back to Reid’s and looked up his assigned readings and began to read. Nichols Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is excellent for exploring writing, thinking, reading, and the larger matrix overall. These three writing professors have been extremely helpful in focusing a meta-cognitive, ontological approach towards writing with some excellent assignments I will be borrowing.

Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford, eds. First-Year Composition: From Theory to Practice. Parlor Press, 2014. Print.

R4: Focusing on Meta-cognition and Diversity

Paula Mathieu proposes that a writing course must be focused on some open ended question that focuses discussions and exploration so that the experience of “searching” for answers can be broad enough to include many interests while also narrow enough to explore a small facet of the issue. I also agree that even with such focusing, her woes about “the reality of how insufficient it all seems” in a single semester is my reality too, even though I have a year to teach a curriculum (125). Never enough time seems to exist to cover everything, so great care must be taken as to what will be presented. Currently my focus in my Brit Lit survey class is the focus on the power of the word. The mid-term and final exams must answer the same question (only cover more material in the final): Trace through the literature we have studied from Anglo-Saxon to modern the changing conscious of humanity about one certain issue. I “preach” that the “word” always comes before the physical manifestation. Literature, I firmly believe, functions as a harbinger of what is coming as society grapples with current concerns. So my focus will be on the power of language, of the “word.”

I also concur that a college level writing class must make students comfortable with scholarly research, including primary sources, and so I like her idea of teaching interviewing for the sake of research. Primary research and library skills are imperative, but without the ability to ask good questions, no amount of research will develop good writing.  So having a meta-cognitive understanding of research helps students to consider “research” beyond the internet.  Lots of mental doors could open up in such conversations as interviews or through “created experiences” or primary sources, leading to lots of questions to research.

Yet, Teresa Redd insists that students must be able to do more than scholarly writing to feel comfortable with their own writing skills. I also agree. All writing in one form or another is research. Some is “lived experience,” some is “created experience” as Douglas Hesse suggests, and some is searching “textual and empirical research” on the same topic (53). Either way, writing is sharing what one has experienced, discovered, or understood. So a writing class must also allow for writing done for different audiences and purposes with different mediums. Ultimately, the one goal for me, as it is for Chris Anson, is for students to be able to think with a meta-consciousness about how to explore and discover knowledge, how to consider that knowledge from an overview (twisting and turning the facts to see new perspectives and be conscious that one is doing just that), and how to communicate that knowledge in such a way that it matches the audience.

Developing these skills covers all five of Redd’s goals in her writing classes: develop authority within one’s own voice that can adapt to any situation; understand the relationships in thinking between writing, reading and research; understand how to research effectively; understand relationships between purpose, audience, and medium; and learn how to use all technologies from pen and paper to digital (147-151). Redd also stresses, as does Asao Inoue, the need to include students as the assessors to help develop that sense of meta-cognition abut their own writing, but she mixes student assessments, portfolios, and summative statements with formative assessments using rubrics and personal conferences. I love the idea of having students read their own papers before a mark is on the paper to “hear” if their errors are from proofreading (because they self-check as they read) or from a lack of knowledge (errors go right past them). That student reading offers two opportunities to assess: what writing knowledge (grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc) are they not understanding or what value lies in proofreading. Both are excellent indicators of need for improvement.

Redd’s formal assessments, like Mathieu’s, focus on “grading” the portfolios and self-assessments, which avoids hindering the “labor” of creation as Inoue fears if formal grades are placed on the writings that move towards a finished product.

My writing class will be focused on an interdisciplinary research focus, will use portfolios and student assessments, will cross mediums for different audiences and environments, and will focus on Redd’s five goals, for they are mine also.

An aside I would like to share is the sublime feeling of being part of this collegiate research world on the pedagogy of writing when seeing Joe Harris’ text Rewriting quoted and forwarded as an argument to further improve writing classes. So cool.

Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford. First Year Composition: From Theory to Practice. Parlor Press, 2014. Print.

Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How To Do Things With Texts. U of Colorado, 2006. Print.

R3: A Possible better life and better student writing?

I spend about 30 to 45 minutes per essay or research paper, totaling 65 hours of outside grading for each assignment given. One year I calculated that I spend over 400 hours, or ten 40-hour work-weeks, outside of school offering feedback and grading papers. And I average only 90 students a year. The value of my time to a student was made clear when a student looked at the grade on a returned six page research paper with an annotated bibliography, a total of 30 seconds, and then walked to the trash can and threw it away in front of me. I made him take the paper out of the can and told him to have the courtesy to throw it away when not in my presence. Even when rewrites are available for every paper to improve the grade, students do not take the time to rewrite nor look at my comments closely (as evident when I get the rewrites with the originals attached). Such futility. Often I bemoan that another way must exist to provide good feedback so that students listen and I do not kill myself with providing feedback and a grade. Asao B. Inoue understands my pain when he stated that “using conventional grading structures to compute course grades often leads students to think more about their grades than about their writing” (105). I cannot agree more. A better way must exist to engage students in their abilities to “resee” what exactly they are or are not communicating.

Both Chris M. Anson and Asao B. Inoue focus on students owning their own writing, their own feedback, and their own sense of style. Anson focuses on teaching writing about writing to develop a metacognitive sense of one’s writing, and Inoue suggests taking grades out altogether and replacing grades with a labor contract. Both end their courses with portfolios and letters from students explaining what was learned and how this learning will be applied in the future. Though both stress peer editing and feedback, Inoue bases paper assessments solely on peer feedback. He does not grade the papers, only looks them over to see what writing topics might best help the current issues that students are having with their writings. When students provide the feedback instead of the teacher, they have more invested, listen more closely and apply the feedback more carefully. Inoue has found great success in letting students help each other. By taking himself out of the grading, he allows the students to be freer with their ideas and approaches because they are consciously thinking of their writing, not the grade. And their writing improves.

Combining Anson’s recognition for metacognition of one’s own writing skills and style with Inoue’s ideas of student feedback for assessments offers students control of their own writing and progress. I am a good editor. I can help students write phenomenal papers, but only students driven by grades make the attempt to do the three to five rewrites necessary until the paper is excellent (according to my standards). My policy of rewriting until happy with a grade does work well, but I also believe I alienate a lot of students and destroy their own sense of themselves as good writers, when in actuality they really are if they would work or put labor into their writings. I grade strictly, requiring a focused thesis, good development, seamless transitions, concise language, and always a significant “so what?”. By being strict with the grades, I hope to motivate students to rewrite for a higher grade, and yet the number of students who do take me up on the offer—usually those whose grades never need help—surprises me. They are the serious, self-motivated students who look closely at criticism, and they are a small bunch.

Rewriting is one of the best ways to learn how to write, but this rewriting must be done with some sense of awareness of what one is writing and why. Having the metacognition of how a good paper works and where one’s skills lay helps with the rewriting tremendously. When a student does come to a private conference prior to a rewrite, we usually have a 30 to 40 minute conversation, not about the paper, but about the topic of the paper and what they find most fascinating about the subject. Then we look at the paper. If this process works well with students having these same conversations with each other about their papers and ideas, then I can step away from that responsibility too, not to unload myself from such responsibilities (I love having these talks with the students, so much easier than grading) but to offer the ownership of improving one’s writing to the students.

If Inoue’s method of assessment with his contract for labor works and students improve, I have got to give it a try. If metacognition of one’s own writing also helps, that too must be done. (I do like Hesse’s ideas about rewriting the same material into different modes of writing to become conscious of how writing changes and why with its audience.) I may just get my life back if these changes in how I teach writing occur. I am so excited to give them a try, not just in my writing class but my Brit Lit survey and AP Literature classes too.

According to Anson, I can find more class time by flipping the class. Students would take notes on a lecture or reading that I provide for homework so that they come in ready to apply that material in class. Such a shift is doable but would require me to put all my lectures on a podcast or video or find readings, podcasts, TedTalks, etc. that share similar perspectives and information. Then students could review other students’ responses to their responses on-line and come to class with pre-determined questions to participate in the discussion (much like this class set-up). Though such a set-up would take a lot of time (and for me a huge technological curve), the extra class time to help students find good sources or write annotations or critically understand a text would be beneficial and appreciated.

I firmly agree that metacognition of one’s own writing is important because only awareness brings change. But if I can switch students from caring about writing instead of grades, then I must try the idea of grading one’s labor and not one’s quality of writing. I know from my own experiences that doing the writing is itself a lesson. Done often with peer feedback, great changes in students’ writing could happen. Teaching writing without formal grading is a dream come true. Inoue’s proof that student assessments work better than teachers’ makes complete sense, and I too hope to show my students that writing is a labor of love.

Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford, eds. First Year Composition:  from Theory      to Practice. South Carolina: Parlor Press, 2014.

R2 Thinking about sources: when does the conversation begin?

Before coming to terms with what an author has stated or sharing a favorite idea or mining another person’s incomplete or skewed ideas or acknowledging influences upon one’s writing, one must first DIG. My students have difficulty in digging up the best facts, quotes, anecdotes, commentary, expert opinions, and more; some never get past Wikipedia, mainly because they do not ask questions of the material they have found to see what rabbit hole they will go down to find more material. Research makes the argument of a position possible. One cannot clarify terms, counter, forward, or understand others’ approaches if one has no “good” material to use. These various forms of critical thinking are necessary to focus one’s research to find new lines of discovery and add to a topic’s academic conversation. Without good research, nothing exists upon which one could forward, counter, or take an approach. Good research skills are at the heart of any academic conversation, and the research must be driven by a careful analysis of the material found, including the sources of one’s sources. One must question from where current source material devised their ideas—what were their sources? How did the current authors differ from their source materials?

In a culture where one can watch a major news network and question where are the facts in the new stories, one can find a student who will say (and I have heard this): “I don’t need any facts. I already know what I think.”

So the fear that academics might be “dogged by worries of bias” is true, but is not such bias the reason for research: to verify or refute or counter or relook at one’s approach to the ideas? Research is meant to be a discovery of what one thinks based upon what others think and an analysis of their thinking against one’s own.

So the first step is to get the facts, the information, the opinions, and more. Then check their sources. Then dig for more information as the researcher analyzes the information found. Using the skills of clarifying terms, forwarding, countering, and checking author’s approaches to their ideas are used WHILE researching. They direct where to look next for information. So the conversation with the research material begins while finding it, not necessarily while incorporating the information into one’s text. Such a process implies that the writing process does not begin until one has found and decided that the information is enough to form an informed opinion.

Yet I have had students tell me they were on page three of a six-page research paper, and when asked if they have finished all their research, they respond not yet. I do not get that concept. How can one begin writing an opinion before ALL the facts are in? Their assumption is that facts and ideas are sacrosanct, that no need exists to evaluate the ideas in one’s sources.

Many students cite sources that simply gloss a subject, and so they “come to terms” with superficial ideas and then forward a particularly favorite superficial idea and totally ignore other ideas, and so find the idea of understanding an author’s approach to material to be pointless because they see only their own ideas. To take an approach requires one to see the “whole picture” and the various ways of approaching the subject, but superficiality offers few approaches and even less development. Lacking good research and facts limits how well one can clearly evaluate one’s materials. Students must learn how to research deeply, how to follow “facts” and determine their ramifications upon the subject. Such thinking given to one’s sources will lead to better papers. Consider this student paragraph on the Beatles’ song “Revolution.”

One of the most influential [proof of its influence?] and moralistic songs of the Beatles was “Revolution,” released in 1968, shortly after the Beatles career had risen. [How much had it risen? Enough to start doing controversial songs? Explain] This song was the first “explicitly political song the band had ever released.”(Song Analysis- Revolution 1) [Why? What does this source say about the political message? What were the band’s politics?] John Lennon wrote this song during the Vietnam War, [what year of the Vietnam war? Be specific. What was happening that year?] the longest war in American history, presenting the problems of the people [what problems?] and protesting against the government actions of war. [What actions? How? Why?] Lennon wanted to craft this song to explain how even though involvement in the war may seem like a positive idea, it is really breaking the country apart [how?] and causing more destruction and damage towards people than might be seen. [Such as?]

This paragraph comes from an AP student. If her paper were to discuss these issues further in the paper with more facts and ideas, then a good analysis would begin to write itself, but she does not. She does not even ask the questions.

And so these skills of clarifying terms, sharing good resources, developing others’ ideas further, and “seeing” the approach or perspective taken by one’s sources are needed to write the paper but even more so to find the source materials themselves. That conversation needs to be happening from the beginning (before one even knows what one thinks or is willing to suspend one’s beliefs), then the conversation will carry over to the final draft, mimicking the process by which the researcher came to certain conclusions and shares what “to think” about a certain topic.

Difficulties with improving student writing

E110 Goals and Purposes: Difficulties

My students believe they have “said it all” and have “no more to say” on their first drafts. Improving writing with peer feedback could reveal other students’ mental “caves” and, in so doing, help students see their own mental “caves.” Such peer editing reveals what has been assumed, overlooked, disconnected, and undefined. But peer editing is more than just “good job” or “nice idea.”

Students must learn to look beyond the conventions misused, the awkward syntax, the wrong word and see the argument or concept beneath the errors and missing evidence. Seeing writing as a process in motion, a creation that evolves again and again, helps students detach their egos from their multiple drafts to become a genuine audience offering genuine product feedback.

My students have difficulty developing thoughts and so do not see complex issues nor missing transitions. Asking good questions, thinking more deeply about subjects, yoking objects or ideas together in ways not done before better prepares students to critique similar and opposing ideas, evaluate evidence, perceive the rhetoric, and see missed possibilities. So peer editing textual creations as a conversation about the ideas presented will improve writing.

Improving critical thinking will improve research. Good writers dig for good information. Trusted to find and cite reputable sources for future research, our global world media requires us all to recognize good sources and question poorly developed information. Peer editing professional work will also sharpen critical presentation skills.

So well taught critical thinking and peer editing can lead to paradigm shifts in writing and thinking evolvement, but learning how to remove verbiage reveals how little they have said and how much they have learned to say. Good writing shines the golden light of good ideas through a well-cut diamond. Every student has diamonds waiting to be “shared” regardless of the media chosen. Self-reflection upon writing, willingness to listen to critiques, learning to remove verbiage, and evaluating textual efficacy will build the meta-cognitive skills needed to create great texts.

These editing skills I can teach. What difficulties I have is transferring such skills to digital medias. Forced to turn a paper into a poster for the 2007 NCTE convention, I struggled to find visual images to convey abstract literary ideas, and the challenge created two posters of which I am proud. Learning remediation will definitely be a peer group effort, both challenging and exciting, for me.