I’m not sure if things felt off today because I was sitting
in the opposite corner of the room and the new vantage point threw off my mojo
OR if it was off because my attention kept being distracted (remind me not to
sit beside Nick next time!), but
something seemed off for me today. Even
though I felt a little discombobulated, what we did today was so interesting to
me. I think that Sally’s modeling of the Socratic Seminar was exemplary and Lil’s work with Envy (especially the Body
Biography) is something that I cannot wait to implement. Check out our group’s
Body Biography below:
What really spoke to me today was Lacy’s work with Not Your
Mama’s Grammar and complicating the notion of conventions. What I took away
(and I think that it is a derivative of something Sarah Davis said) is that
grammar should be used as a set of tools rather than a set of rules. I have
always been REALLY curious about grammar instruction and what is the best
method for our students. I’m actually writing my graduate project on the “Great
Grammar Debate” and whether or not we (college composition) should explicitly
teach it in our classrooms. I created a site for my directed reading last
semester on it and here is the link (http://kandre17.wix.com/thegrammardebate) if you want to check it out. The site
itself may be a little boring, but there is a tab called “Review of Research”
and that has an annotated list of the most well-known articles on this topic.
If you’re interested in reading more on whether or not we should be teaching
grammar, you should check it out! At least you can save yourself some research time :)
And if you want to check out an interesting video, please watch the one below. It's based on Newsweek's 1975 article, "Why Johnny Can't Write" that created the illiteracy scare/writing crisis of the 1970s. It's really interesting to see what role popular media can play in the way America thinks about writing and ultimately about our teaching practices.
Another thing I was thinking about was the connection among
grammar, speech, and writing. I recognize that we don’t use grammar in our
speech by internally flipping through the grammar files in our brain each time
we create a sentence or suspect a problem—it just happens naturally. What I
think we need to remember too is that the language we use in speech is often very
different from the language we use in writing because speech and writing are
two very different modes of communication. Speech is usually more spontaneous,
interactive, and context-bound whereas writing is usually more concretized,
structured, and context-independent. In other words, you use speech on the fly
and what you say depends on who you are talking to and in what context. Now
context and audience most certainly play a MAJOR role in writing, but what is
unique to writing (over spontaneous speech) is that it can transcend the
original audience and context (anyone can read it in any context) and yet it
maintains exactly what has been written (concretized). I just wonder if the
nuanced differences between speech and writing should be considered more when
we often use them interchangeably.
And I'll leave you with this video since we were talking about Grammar Nazis in our group:
In order to set the tone for today’s post, I tried to think
about what video I can put up here that expresses my mood right now. I was
having a hard time, but I came across this cool video:
And I had to include it, so enjoy! Even though Steve’s
revision section today and Mary Ellen’s demo on re-purposing were fantastic, I
couldn’t help but think about all things digital for most of the day. I don’t
know if it’s because one of my primary research interests is emergent digital
genres or because it’s just really interesting, but I have a fascination with
all things digital. I think that we are on the brink of something so new,
exciting, and even revolutionary in writing with the changes inherent with the
digital medium. What most interests me is how these new genres have such
different conventions from their paper counterparts.
For example, the digital
essay is not just a standard essay created in a digital space. A digital essay
should make use of all the affordances that a digital space creates such as the
ability to link, to use images, to use video and audio AND it needs to use the “web-like”
affordances of the internet by showing connections rather than remaining on a
linear plane as a traditional essay would. That means that the digital essay
wouldn’t have a traditional introduction at the top, conclusion at the bottom,
and body content in between, but rather the digital essay should be able to
rely mostly on content that could be accessed through tiled tabs or in a larger
space. If you want to check out a digital essay that I wrote on Bob Dylan, you
can access it here: http://kandre17.wix.com/dylanandrhetoric. I’m not saying it’s the right way to write a digital essay or even a good way, but it’s a way that
I tried it.
As far as my digital project, I thought it was
so hard! I used Prezi for the first official time (I’ve tried at least ten
times before and given up) and trying to figure out how to work it felt like I
was doing this:
But after a lot of hard work and a lot of swearing, I
finished it up in the wee hours of Monday morning. I haven’t quite figured out
how to create a link for it so that will be forthcoming; however, here is a screenshot for now:
Even though it was a
lot of work and a lot of confusion, I’m really glad we did it because it pushed
me to learn a new genre as well as my trajectory as a teacher. I also think that the gallery crawl with the sticky notes was a great way to give feedback to everyone and I can't wait to use that in my class. It was such a great feeling to come back to your computer and see it filled with great comments:
Side note: During all my random surfing for my
initial video, I came across this 1984 Apple commercial that introduces the
Macintosh computer. It is amazing! I would love to spend hours and hours
dissecting it (especially the big brother part and how that is so appropriate
for today too), but I wanted to know what you guys thought!
Today was a good day. Even though I had been stressing over
and worrying about doing my demo for weeks now, I have to say that it went much
better than expected (there were no judgmental stares, snide questions, or
natural disasters) and I think that we were able to get a good conversation
started.
That’s what is really the most important aspect of the demo for me:
having a conversation about how we view good writing. I don’t necessarily have
an answer or think that we should throw out these rules as we have always known
them, but I do think that we need to complicate the notion itself and consider
the possibility that these rules are much more malleable than we may think. If
we look at writing only through the lens of these unbreakable rules, then we
may be missing out on the more visceral or felt sense of writing. (That’s
hopefully what the groups noticed as they were forced to rank certain pieces of
writing in a certain way according to the rules). If we had extra time, I would have liked to read "What Writing Is" by Stephen King, which comes from his memoir On Writing. I love how he defines writing and how we should approach it, and I think that it would be well worth your time to read it--my students love it just as much as I do (it's not only funny, but he really has good things to say).
Also, I
probably would have shown this video made by some journalism students on the oh-so
lauded and hated Elements of Style byStrunk and White.
Even though the video is kind of overdone at times, it can
show that even the most widely accepted experts on style can be ridiculous too.
We also would have spent more time
talking about each of the pieces individually and discussed how each one could
function as an example of good writing, which would lead into an even larger
discussion of genre, purpose, audience, tone, etc. (Interesting note: the “Itwas a dark and stormy night” piece is what Snoopy is usually writing as his
masterpiece in the Peanuts cartoon and it is generally thought to be one of the
worst opening lines to a novel ever. They even have annual contests named after
the author where contestants try to write even worse ones...might be kind of fun...)
Overall, the teacher demonstration was a great experience
for me and I learned so much from listening to everyone in class. I especially
appreciated Wendy’s comments on how these conversations may not be the most
practical for certain students/what do you do when you are bound (by pay and
testing) to these rules. I don’t have the answer to those questions yet, but it
certainly got me thinking and I always appreciate anything that helps me
complicate my thinking in new ways. I am including the text from my lesson plan
below along with notes and pictures in case you may want them for any
adaptations. Thanks so much!
What is Good Writing?
A Game of Belief and Doubt
“The truer it seems, the harder you have to doubt it” (Peter Elbow)
Writing into the Day:
Throughout our schooling career, we are
repeatedly given examples of “good writing” and we are constantly reminded of
the “rules for good writing.” I want you to spend today’s daybook time making a
list of these examples of good writing and trying to remember some of these
rules that you have been told are true and maybe even some that you also
believe to be true. Then try to use those rules to create a personal definition
of both good writing and bad writing.
Getting into Groups: Group Configuring with Composer Cards (novelists, poets, movie directors, screenwriters, cartoonists, lyricists, visual artists, etc.)
I try to get my students into random groups
as much as possible during the first few weeks of class before we move into
assigned writing groups. I like this method because they have to talk to each
other to figure out who they are and where they belong. However, I also will
use playing cards and match them by suit or number.
Cooperative Work:
Once in groups, you must share the rules and
definitions that you wrote in your daybook to the rest of the members. After
everyone has shared, you must collectively (everyone must agree!) decide on 4-5
rules for good writing that you have been told and will believe to be true.
Please make sure that you record these rules in order of significance.
Posters from the Groups:
Once the
rules have been recorded, you must read and examine the eight different writing
samples that I have given you.
The eight pieces were a comic on writing by comic theorist Scott McCloud, the DVD synopsis/blurb for One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (I try to use a movie the students may not know), an excerpt from Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Hamlet's "To be or not to be" Soliloquy from Shakespeare, the infamous opening line from Edward Bulwer-Lytton's Paul Clifford, the directions from Crest Whitening Strips (directions to children's games like Candy Land work well too), the lyrics to "Smells like Teen Spirit" (chosen because they are messy and seem discordant, but the lyrics are representative of a generational shift), and the last piece comes from James Gee's discussions on Discourse or an excerpt from a theorist like Michel Bakhtin or Jacques Derrida. Of course, you could choose any pieces you like, but these are the ones that have worked for me.
According
to the rules that your group created, rank each of these pieces in order of
their “quality” (along the spectrum of good writing to bad writing). Then,
record your ranking on your group’s sheet and explain why you ranked or had to
rank each piece in its particular position.
Circle Up and Share Out:
Each group will share and explain their
rankings. Then, we will take a moment to see if we can complicate things a bit
and I would also like for the group to comment on any of the following
questions:
*What rules do we all seem to agree on? Where does this
agreement come from?
*Why do we have the preconceptions about writing? How
may it change once you go outside of this particular classroom?
*Why may it be important to know “the rules” of “good
writing” first? Do you have to understand something before you subvert it?
*What is dangerous about setting up a distinct
dichotomy of good vs. bad?
*How do audience, genre, medium, style, and purpose
play into this?
*Is good writing based on what it produces in the
reader? If they want to engage and not put it down? Emotionally charged?
Factual? Argumentative?
*How do these rules function in the
context of professional writers? Do professional writers follow these rules?
*Try to think of these rules on a
broader level. What kind of function or purpose do they serve? Should everyone
follow them? Do they work in all situations? Do they privilege certain people? Is
it the intention to privilege certain people?
*And most importantly, why do you
think that this notion of rules for good writing persists?
Returning to our Thoughts:
Take a few minutes to respond to your initial definitions of
good writing. Did this particular activity affect your previous thinking? Why
do you think the notion of good writing persists? How will it affect you as a
teacher? How will it affect you as a writer? How could you apply Elbow’s ideas
of belief and doubt into your own teaching practices?
Theoretical Framework:
The believing and doubting game can
be found in the appendix of Peter Elbow’s Writing
Without Teachers (1973). Essentially Elbow is asking the reader not only to
doubt what she is reading (look for error, assume that something is wrong,
develop a contradictory opinion), but also to believe what she is reading
(project herself into the writer’s perspective). There needs to be a balance of
both doubt and belief to really read and understand a piece of writing. (**Please keep in mind that this is a reductionist version of this theory and there is much more to it than I have described here**) You can see some of Peter Elbow's ideas on writing here:
The following is just a fun thing that one of my students sent me after we did this exercise:
When in doubt, just try to remember the rules on HOW TO WRITE GOOD:
1.AVOID ALLITERATION ALWAYS
2.PREPOSITIONS ARE NOT WORDS TO END
SENTENCES WITH.
3.THE PASSIVE VOICE IS TO BE AVOIDED.
4.AVOID CLICHES LIKE THE PLAGUE.
THEY’RE OLD HAT.
5.IT IS WRONG TO EVER SPLIT AN
INFINITIVE.
6.WRITERS SHOULD NEVER GENERALIZE.
Seven: BE CONSISTENT
8. DON’T USE MORE WORDS THAN NECESSARY. IT’S HIGHLY
SUPERFLUOUS.
9. BE MORE OR LESS SPECIFIC.
10. EXAGGERATION IS A BILLION TIMES WORSE THAN
UNDERSTATEMENT.
Even though I had a lot on my mind today (my mom had surgery
and I have my demo tomorrow) and I may have lost my mind a little bit in the
end with my webcam pictures (you can check them out in my "Documenting the Day"), I still thought that
today was a great day for finding our stories and all things digital. The day
started out with a particularly moving TED Video by Chimamanda Adichie in which
she explores the danger of believing the single story.
I think of this single
story as the persisting stereotype or some sort of fixed cultural lens and it
got me thinking about how we do think about Africa. Recently, President Obama has
been in Africa where he saw that over 70% of the population lives without
electricity (according to NPR) and that there is an incongruous combination of
rampant hunger and an increase in the population. He has suggested that
America move from an “aid” standpoint with Africa to more of a trade andpartnership relationship. This story and the TED video made me wonder if part
of that “aid dynamic” where the wealthier, predominantly white nation is
throwing money at a problem rather than working in different countries with
different populations to make progress for the future. Could this power dynamic
that has been set up for so many years actually be doing more harm (in the theoretical/cultural
capital sense) than good?
If my generation has grown up learning to pity people
in Africa (I can’t tell you how many times I heard as I was growing up…You better finish your food, there are
starving kids in Africa), then are we devaluing those people? And isn’t
devaluing someone at the human level the greater evil? Yikes! I don’t want you to think that I don’t
believe in helping someone else or charity or do-gooding in general (although I
do question the existence of pure altruism), but what I do believe is that it’s
important for all of us to think about how the way we think and talk about
people or things go much deeper than we typically consider and that it’s so important
for us to think about the why as much as the what.
I can’t wait to use this
video (and subsequent teacher models) with my students. I think that it’s so
important for them to consider not only what they think, but to complicate why
they think so. And what better way to articulate that thinking and explore the
dynamic than through writing?
Sorry if I kinda went on a tangent, but this was on my mind...
I’m still trying to process all that we did today—improvisation, literacy timelines, digital histories, Murray cards, inquiry work, covert dealing, and a whole lot of writing. I can’t believe that we accomplished so much in one day…I almost feel as if it never happened at all or happened in some sort of bizarro-world. And now I’m starting to wonder if this is how my students feel after one of my classes because I am a huge proponent of keeping things moving in the classroom. I don’t like us to work on something for more than fifteen or twenty minutes before we move on to something different albeit related. (I think that I heard somewhere that people can maintain their attention span in direct relation to their age…or maybe it’s that you’re not supposed to keep a kid in time out for longer than his age before it becomes ineffective…regardless, I have always kept things moving as part of my pedagogy.) And today, I felt that we had that same movement in the institute, which was both exhilarating and exhausting. We really did go through the process of writing and the possibilities in a writing class just as a student would, which is why I felt like I was seeing myself through the looking glass today. I was able to see much of what I do in the classroom through the eyes of a participant or a student…it’s the same image, but from a different perspective. It made me think of Lewis Carroll’s ideas in Alice through the Looking Glass where an alternate universe/perspective exists in exact relation to the original perspective (it couldn’t exist without it). Let’s just hope there isn’t a jabberwocky around the corner…
In case you want a visual of what I’m talking about, check out this clip from one of my favorite versions of Alice in Wonderland. It’s the 1985 “Made for TV” version that has people from Ringo Starr to Scott Baio to Sammy Davis Jr. to Carol Channing—soooo good!
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
