Sometimes there are days when I am just blown away by the students here and Wednesday was one of those days.
We started with a qw since they were turning in project I.3 which was a revision of I.2. I asked them to write about the experience of writing the essay, the challenges and successes. I also asked them to describe what, if anything, they learned from doing a multi-draft process. (Students ended up writing about this in interesting ways: all found it helpful, most had never done this before.)
Next, I talked about how Freire is an example of a highly abstract or theoretical essay. I talked about using keywords as a strategy for reading theory. I also talked about how we might note that keywords are a major writerly move in theoretical writing.
I put the following keywords on the board and told them I took them from their qws on Monday:
banking concept, problem-posing education, human, consciousness, oppression/freedom, teacher-student relationship.
I then had the students get into pairs or groups of 3 and pick one of these keywords. Their group had to define the concept, have places to take us to in the text related to it, analyze these textual examples, and connect the concept to their experiences or the other readings we have done. All the keywords had at least 1 group working on them; some had several separate groups. After 20 minutes, we reformed as a big circle and they talked about what they did. It was amazing.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, the 8th
First Freire day. Practiced simplicity.
QW (15 m): What is F's project? What is at stake? Have you had experiences that relate to this essay?
We got in a circle and discussed what they wrote about for the whole class.
QW (15 m): What is F's project? What is at stake? Have you had experiences that relate to this essay?
We got in a circle and discussed what they wrote about for the whole class.
Week 6 Round Up
I decided to act on things I learned from the students from the conferences and slow us down quite a bit. I cleared the entire week to focus on writing workshops and adjusted due dates to give the students more time to work on each paper.
Monday:
Several students talked about wanting to write better intros and conclusions in their conferences. So, today was intro and conclusion day.
QW (15 m): What do you know about introductions and conclusions? What questions do you have about them?
We discussed what they wrote and I asked them to brainstorm the uses for and kinds of intros and conclusions. We generated quite a list that I put on the board. Next, we looked at a bunch of intro paragraphs from Ways of Reading (I had us look at some of the more traditional academic essays in it which we haven't read). We then discussed what each intro was doing. We noticed most of them either told a story or set up a context/background and that most did not have a thesis.
Next, we looked at Anzaldua's conclusion and talked about how it functioned.
I gave the students the following worksheet and assigned them to read 3 essays by their classmates that I had posted on BB and to do the worksheet. Finally, my intern did a lesson on plagiarism.
Worksheet:
Please print off and carefully read the three essays by your colleagues in response to Project I.2 (these are on BB under Course Materials). Please answer the following questions about each essay.
1. What is the project? What is at stake?
2. How would you characterize the introduction? What work is it doing? Would you make any recommendations for revising it?
3. How would you characterize the conclusion? What work is it doing? Would you make any recommendations for revising it?
4. Look at the use of quotations. Do they seem well-integrated into the essay? What recommendations would you make regarding the use of quotations in revision?
WEDNESDAY
I taught students how to do a reverse outline out of a complete draft. As a class we did this together on one of the student essays we had read for hw. I put our outline on the board and we talked about revision possibilities. Next, students got in groups of 2-3 and worked with one of the 2 remaining essays to create and outline. The groups reported and I put what they said on the board. This became a great conversation about the strengths of the writers' projects, etc. Ended by talking about using the things we practiced this week in the revisions they have due on the 10th.
Monday:
Several students talked about wanting to write better intros and conclusions in their conferences. So, today was intro and conclusion day.
QW (15 m): What do you know about introductions and conclusions? What questions do you have about them?
We discussed what they wrote and I asked them to brainstorm the uses for and kinds of intros and conclusions. We generated quite a list that I put on the board. Next, we looked at a bunch of intro paragraphs from Ways of Reading (I had us look at some of the more traditional academic essays in it which we haven't read). We then discussed what each intro was doing. We noticed most of them either told a story or set up a context/background and that most did not have a thesis.
Next, we looked at Anzaldua's conclusion and talked about how it functioned.
I gave the students the following worksheet and assigned them to read 3 essays by their classmates that I had posted on BB and to do the worksheet. Finally, my intern did a lesson on plagiarism.
Worksheet:
Please print off and carefully read the three essays by your colleagues in response to Project I.2 (these are on BB under Course Materials). Please answer the following questions about each essay.
1. What is the project? What is at stake?
2. How would you characterize the introduction? What work is it doing? Would you make any recommendations for revising it?
3. How would you characterize the conclusion? What work is it doing? Would you make any recommendations for revising it?
4. Look at the use of quotations. Do they seem well-integrated into the essay? What recommendations would you make regarding the use of quotations in revision?
WEDNESDAY
I taught students how to do a reverse outline out of a complete draft. As a class we did this together on one of the student essays we had read for hw. I put our outline on the board and we talked about revision possibilities. Next, students got in groups of 2-3 and worked with one of the 2 remaining essays to create and outline. The groups reported and I put what they said on the board. This became a great conversation about the strengths of the writers' projects, etc. Ended by talking about using the things we practiced this week in the revisions they have due on the 10th.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Mid-term Conferences
Every year I do conferences I am struck by what a useful practice it is. I learned many things about my students today, including that they are not bogged down by what I saw as messiness last week: several mentioned (unprompted) how last week's classes helped them think about writing. Phew (so far).
Several students were so relieved that we were having a nice conversation about writing that they shook my hand or thanked me after the conference (they said they had been really nervous).
Things that came up in conversations today: drafting strategies, reading strategies for difficult texts, outlining from drafts, MLA citation, keeping a calendar.
More meetings tomorrow . . .
Several students were so relieved that we were having a nice conversation about writing that they shook my hand or thanked me after the conference (they said they had been really nervous).
Things that came up in conversations today: drafting strategies, reading strategies for difficult texts, outlining from drafts, MLA citation, keeping a calendar.
More meetings tomorrow . . .
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The messy time
Another messy day. Just trying to remind myself this happens almost every term and the messiness is productive. It will all come together.
Okay, this day's plan was fueled by the assignment I wrote for I.2. Here's the assignment:
Due: At mid-term conference
Minimum 4 pages, double-spaced, 12 point Times New Roman
We have now read two essays by writers grappling with issues related to how identity intersects with community, family, and education. Both Wideman and Anzaldua use writerly moves to enhance their explorations of these issues. In this essay please discuss how specific writerly moves in these essays relate to what you see as the writer’s project. You should both describe how the writerly moves specifically function in relation to the project and explain what is at stake for the writer in doing this. What are the potential risks or rewards in undertaking these projects in these ways? What, in the end, do you think about these very different ways of exploring important issues?
You may find that you can build off of what you have already written in Project I.1, although you will need to reframe the essay. Some of may find that you will only use parts of what you have already written or that you need to rethink, extend and revise what you wrote previously.
Please use quotations to build your discussion and make sure you have a “quote sandwich” for each quote. Use MLA parenthetical citation with these quotations. Please also include a works cited page.
Here's the class plan for the day:
Conference Sign up
QW (15): What connections do you see between W’s and A’s projects?
· Discussion
· Wkshop
o Project
o Stake
o Quotations
o Successes, interest
o Other suggestions
· Reflection: How could you use this workshop to help you with I.2?
I hope this qw set up the groundwork for I.2. After they finished writing we had a really good discussion about what they had written with me putting their words on the board. I then had an impulse to hand out the assignment, which I did. We read through it and discussed it. The students asked me to clarify project and stakes again. I asked the students to help me compose a definition, which they did, and I wrote it on the board. One student proposed defining project as theme, which lead me to talking about how you talk about theme. (I hugely regret introducing "theme" into my previous assignment. It ended up springing a kind of trap on the students who used it and were used to h.s. ways of talking about theme as something outside the text: "Wideman talks about the theme of Tragedy Leading to a Downward Spiral.")
In trying to explain the problems associated with the above ways of talking about theme, I decided to ask the students to write a quick plan for themselves in relation to the next essay. I said write something like "I want to know about or talk about x because it is important because of y." This was a spur of the moment idea and as I said it I realized this could also terribly backfire. But, in asking what they wrote it seemed okay, especially since many students did set it up as a question they wanted to look into. I then talked about starting an essay with something you want to know is a great approach.
Since I was already totally off the plan, I segued from this to talking about beginning writing. I said I had noted that many students wrote about their struggles writing the 1st essay because it was hard to write the intro. I talked about writing the intro last (and said it was a secret move of many professional writers). One student suggested essentially freewriting to get started, which was great. I also talked about webbing as a tool for brainstorming. I tried to emphasize that individuals had to discover what works best for them.
Next, we turned to the workshop. I had put the workshop questions on the board and asked them to tell me what we thought writers should do with their quotes and I put this stuff on the board. I very quickly talked about citation and told them to use the handbooks to make sure they were doing this right in their essays.
We read both remaining essays (from last week's packet) aloud. By this time I was really running out of time. After giving them 10 minutes to work on the questions, we only really had 10 minutes to discuss the essay. We debated whether essay 2's scattered approach to having a project was a problem. A student also critiqued the essay writer's informal prose which lead to a discussion about voice and formal vs informal voice and context. This all sounds good now, but it was really rushed in class and messy. I ended the class by saying we were at a messy point but it would be okay. I handed back papers.
I'm feeling like I need a lot more time just to talk with them about their writing.
Okay, this day's plan was fueled by the assignment I wrote for I.2. Here's the assignment:
Due: At mid-term conference
Minimum 4 pages, double-spaced, 12 point Times New Roman
We have now read two essays by writers grappling with issues related to how identity intersects with community, family, and education. Both Wideman and Anzaldua use writerly moves to enhance their explorations of these issues. In this essay please discuss how specific writerly moves in these essays relate to what you see as the writer’s project. You should both describe how the writerly moves specifically function in relation to the project and explain what is at stake for the writer in doing this. What are the potential risks or rewards in undertaking these projects in these ways? What, in the end, do you think about these very different ways of exploring important issues?
You may find that you can build off of what you have already written in Project I.1, although you will need to reframe the essay. Some of may find that you will only use parts of what you have already written or that you need to rethink, extend and revise what you wrote previously.
Please use quotations to build your discussion and make sure you have a “quote sandwich” for each quote. Use MLA parenthetical citation with these quotations. Please also include a works cited page.
Here's the class plan for the day:
Conference Sign up
QW (15): What connections do you see between W’s and A’s projects?
· Discussion
· Wkshop
o Project
o Stake
o Quotations
o Successes, interest
o Other suggestions
· Reflection: How could you use this workshop to help you with I.2?
I hope this qw set up the groundwork for I.2. After they finished writing we had a really good discussion about what they had written with me putting their words on the board. I then had an impulse to hand out the assignment, which I did. We read through it and discussed it. The students asked me to clarify project and stakes again. I asked the students to help me compose a definition, which they did, and I wrote it on the board. One student proposed defining project as theme, which lead me to talking about how you talk about theme. (I hugely regret introducing "theme" into my previous assignment. It ended up springing a kind of trap on the students who used it and were used to h.s. ways of talking about theme as something outside the text: "Wideman talks about the theme of Tragedy Leading to a Downward Spiral.")
In trying to explain the problems associated with the above ways of talking about theme, I decided to ask the students to write a quick plan for themselves in relation to the next essay. I said write something like "I want to know about or talk about x because it is important because of y." This was a spur of the moment idea and as I said it I realized this could also terribly backfire. But, in asking what they wrote it seemed okay, especially since many students did set it up as a question they wanted to look into. I then talked about starting an essay with something you want to know is a great approach.
Since I was already totally off the plan, I segued from this to talking about beginning writing. I said I had noted that many students wrote about their struggles writing the 1st essay because it was hard to write the intro. I talked about writing the intro last (and said it was a secret move of many professional writers). One student suggested essentially freewriting to get started, which was great. I also talked about webbing as a tool for brainstorming. I tried to emphasize that individuals had to discover what works best for them.
Next, we turned to the workshop. I had put the workshop questions on the board and asked them to tell me what we thought writers should do with their quotes and I put this stuff on the board. I very quickly talked about citation and told them to use the handbooks to make sure they were doing this right in their essays.
We read both remaining essays (from last week's packet) aloud. By this time I was really running out of time. After giving them 10 minutes to work on the questions, we only really had 10 minutes to discuss the essay. We debated whether essay 2's scattered approach to having a project was a problem. A student also critiqued the essay writer's informal prose which lead to a discussion about voice and formal vs informal voice and context. This all sounds good now, but it was really rushed in class and messy. I ended the class by saying we were at a messy point but it would be okay. I handed back papers.
I'm feeling like I need a lot more time just to talk with them about their writing.
Confusion!
Okay, so last Wednesday might have been the highpoint of the term. This week has been all downhill. Ahhhh . . . rollercoaster.
Monday was our first day with Anzaldua. Here's what I had planned:
QW: Describe your reaction to this essay. What was the experience of reading it like? What struck you as significant? Where would you want to start our conversation?
Discussion
Then, pairs work on:
· What’s the project?
· What’s at stake?
· What writerly moves do you see here?
· How do the writerly moves relate to her project?
I am now using the same basic set of questions to discuss both the published readings and their own writing.
The conversation was, I guess in retrospect, fine. From their qws we talked about experiences of not knowing Spanish or of knowing Spanish. We talked about why Anzaldua would create these experiences.
Next, I asked them to get in pairs and work on the questions above. I sat with a pair group that included a student I have kept my eye on because he is giving off strong vibes of "I already know everything and don't need to put any effort in." I sat with them for an excruciating 25 minutes, making them accountable for what they said and posing questions that forced them to confront what they didn't know. Blah! (I will say, from the vantage point of Thursday, that Problem Student had a lot less attitude on Wed.)
Finally, we turned to whole group discussion about what they had discussed. It was a lively discussion. The confusion part was that the students were eager to throw around generalizations about "race" and ethnic groups. One of my more vocal white students said things like "it makes me feel sad that other people want to be white. We're not that great." And, "I'm white, so I don't have a culture." Good effing lord -- lots and lots of work for me! I talked about whiteness studies and white privilege and Sonia Sotomayor versus Sam Alito -- whose perspective is seen by a bunch of white men as differently dangerous? Luckily, the student who had prompted her to say the thing about everyone wanting to be white (he talked about his immigrant (Middle Eastern) family "whitewashing" themselves) corrected and challenged her. At one moment I realized we were in danger of talking about whites as a monolith and about the group that doesn't know Spanish as the monolith white. I talked about how significant social, regional, class differences cut across "race" and how people of color who don't know Spanish were being left out of our consideration. Problem Student then piped up angerly that "white" people can know Spanish. To which I responded that was of course true and tried to pull us back to thinking about how Anz prompted this whole discussion re: dominant culture (I phrase I like better since it gets us away from too facile generalizations about "race") and difference.
Messy messy day.
Monday was our first day with Anzaldua. Here's what I had planned:
QW: Describe your reaction to this essay. What was the experience of reading it like? What struck you as significant? Where would you want to start our conversation?
Discussion
Then, pairs work on:
· What’s the project?
· What’s at stake?
· What writerly moves do you see here?
· How do the writerly moves relate to her project?
I am now using the same basic set of questions to discuss both the published readings and their own writing.
The conversation was, I guess in retrospect, fine. From their qws we talked about experiences of not knowing Spanish or of knowing Spanish. We talked about why Anzaldua would create these experiences.
Next, I asked them to get in pairs and work on the questions above. I sat with a pair group that included a student I have kept my eye on because he is giving off strong vibes of "I already know everything and don't need to put any effort in." I sat with them for an excruciating 25 minutes, making them accountable for what they said and posing questions that forced them to confront what they didn't know. Blah! (I will say, from the vantage point of Thursday, that Problem Student had a lot less attitude on Wed.)
Finally, we turned to whole group discussion about what they had discussed. It was a lively discussion. The confusion part was that the students were eager to throw around generalizations about "race" and ethnic groups. One of my more vocal white students said things like "it makes me feel sad that other people want to be white. We're not that great." And, "I'm white, so I don't have a culture." Good effing lord -- lots and lots of work for me! I talked about whiteness studies and white privilege and Sonia Sotomayor versus Sam Alito -- whose perspective is seen by a bunch of white men as differently dangerous? Luckily, the student who had prompted her to say the thing about everyone wanting to be white (he talked about his immigrant (Middle Eastern) family "whitewashing" themselves) corrected and challenged her. At one moment I realized we were in danger of talking about whites as a monolith and about the group that doesn't know Spanish as the monolith white. I talked about how significant social, regional, class differences cut across "race" and how people of color who don't know Spanish were being left out of our consideration. Problem Student then piped up angerly that "white" people can know Spanish. To which I responded that was of course true and tried to pull us back to thinking about how Anz prompted this whole discussion re: dominant culture (I phrase I like better since it gets us away from too facile generalizations about "race") and difference.
Messy messy day.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Day 6: Writing Workshop
I had planned to spend the entire class workshopping 3 essays, but the results of the reviews of reviews from Monday were so uneven that I wanted to spend time on them. So, here is what I did in class:
I started with a qw about the first essay they were turning in·
Qw (20 m): Describe the experience of writing the essay. What surprised or challenged you in writing? How did you meet the challenges that arose? What are you pleased with in the essay? Why? What would you like to work on more and why?
The students turned the qw in with their essays. Next, I pulled up three of the strongest reviews the students had done on Monday and we read them aloud. I said they were extremely good reviews and asked the rest of the class to tell me what they saw the writers doing in them, what was successful. The students talked about the detail the writers used and how the reviews were put together.
None of the students cited their review correctly, so I had sent an email asking them to bring in their writing handbooks (I also put the OWL website info on the board). I realized last year that students don't necessarily realize that EVERYONE looks up citations -- I think they think you are supposed to somehow just know. I also realized many students aren't sure how to use the handbooks, so I had them move through the handbooks as I talked about how they were organized. We moved to the MLA section and I asked them to find the information about how to cite from scholarly journals and periodicals (this also led to a review of the difference between them). Next we talked about what an anthology is and then they looked up the citation for that. The students wanted to know how you know if titles go in quotes or italics. I had them look in the index to find out where to find the info.
After all this business, we started our writing workshop. I introduced the terms I wanted to use for talking about writing (project and "what's at stake"), explaining why I was purposely moving away from the language of thesis. I also explained that I will always bring in strong papers that would allow us to talk about issues facing all the students when we workshopped.
Next, I put on the board what I wanted us to look at in talking about the papers. Here's what I wrote:
o What's the writer's project?
o What's at stake?
o Where are you most interested?
o Where would you like to know more?
o Other suggestions?
We then sat in a circle and students volunteered to read each paragraph of the first essay aloud. After the reading, I gave them about 15 minutes to work through our questions in relation to the paper.
During discussion there were a couple different ways the students named the writer's project. What was so cool is that they would then refer back to B and P's introduction and their point about individual readings.
Overall, there were 3 magically exciting moments to me in this workshop (never happened to me before!):
1. A students said that the essay made her re-see Wideman's essay. I freaked out, shouting, "yes! exactly! That's what we are doing in here, that's why you are writing -- to show all of us in the class, not just me, your take on the reading. Wonderful!"
2. When I asked what they said for what was at stake, a student who is a self-professed English hater said, "This is a really weird thing to ask us to think about. I don't get it. How can there be something at stake?" I freaked out with excitement. I said, "You're right, it does probably seem like a strange thing to ask you to think about. I bet, correct me if I am wrong, that you've never had reason to write something for any other reason than to fulfill a task set by a teacher and get a grade. Is this fair to say? What I am suggesting to you is that now, in university, you are writing because you have something worth saying and that you need to tell your reader why it is worth saying. It is not just a task for a grade." I then talked about how we professors write and in our writing we have to give our readers a reason to read, otherwise why would they keep reading. I said that as university students, the students in the class were in the same position and that this is exciting.
3. A student raised a question during our workshop discussion, saying, "If we are saying that everyone reads differently and has their own interpretation, how do you know your reader will see what you want them to see in your quotes?" SO EXCITING!!! I wasn't even going to talk about quotation today, but there it was organic and framed brillantly! From there I talked about the quote sandwich and telling your reader what you want them to notice in the quote. We then looked at the quotes in the student essay and noticed that one of the most important quotes did not do -- in its content -- what the writer claimed it did. We talked about what the writer would need to revise this.
In the last 5 minutes I asked the students what they could take away from this workshop and they discussed using quotes, saying why what they were doing was significant, etc.
I started with a qw about the first essay they were turning in·
Qw (20 m): Describe the experience of writing the essay. What surprised or challenged you in writing? How did you meet the challenges that arose? What are you pleased with in the essay? Why? What would you like to work on more and why?
The students turned the qw in with their essays. Next, I pulled up three of the strongest reviews the students had done on Monday and we read them aloud. I said they were extremely good reviews and asked the rest of the class to tell me what they saw the writers doing in them, what was successful. The students talked about the detail the writers used and how the reviews were put together.
None of the students cited their review correctly, so I had sent an email asking them to bring in their writing handbooks (I also put the OWL website info on the board). I realized last year that students don't necessarily realize that EVERYONE looks up citations -- I think they think you are supposed to somehow just know. I also realized many students aren't sure how to use the handbooks, so I had them move through the handbooks as I talked about how they were organized. We moved to the MLA section and I asked them to find the information about how to cite from scholarly journals and periodicals (this also led to a review of the difference between them). Next we talked about what an anthology is and then they looked up the citation for that. The students wanted to know how you know if titles go in quotes or italics. I had them look in the index to find out where to find the info.
After all this business, we started our writing workshop. I introduced the terms I wanted to use for talking about writing (project and "what's at stake"), explaining why I was purposely moving away from the language of thesis. I also explained that I will always bring in strong papers that would allow us to talk about issues facing all the students when we workshopped.
Next, I put on the board what I wanted us to look at in talking about the papers. Here's what I wrote:
o What's the writer's project?
o What's at stake?
o Where are you most interested?
o Where would you like to know more?
o Other suggestions?
We then sat in a circle and students volunteered to read each paragraph of the first essay aloud. After the reading, I gave them about 15 minutes to work through our questions in relation to the paper.
During discussion there were a couple different ways the students named the writer's project. What was so cool is that they would then refer back to B and P's introduction and their point about individual readings.
Overall, there were 3 magically exciting moments to me in this workshop (never happened to me before!):
1. A students said that the essay made her re-see Wideman's essay. I freaked out, shouting, "yes! exactly! That's what we are doing in here, that's why you are writing -- to show all of us in the class, not just me, your take on the reading. Wonderful!"
2. When I asked what they said for what was at stake, a student who is a self-professed English hater said, "This is a really weird thing to ask us to think about. I don't get it. How can there be something at stake?" I freaked out with excitement. I said, "You're right, it does probably seem like a strange thing to ask you to think about. I bet, correct me if I am wrong, that you've never had reason to write something for any other reason than to fulfill a task set by a teacher and get a grade. Is this fair to say? What I am suggesting to you is that now, in university, you are writing because you have something worth saying and that you need to tell your reader why it is worth saying. It is not just a task for a grade." I then talked about how we professors write and in our writing we have to give our readers a reason to read, otherwise why would they keep reading. I said that as university students, the students in the class were in the same position and that this is exciting.
3. A student raised a question during our workshop discussion, saying, "If we are saying that everyone reads differently and has their own interpretation, how do you know your reader will see what you want them to see in your quotes?" SO EXCITING!!! I wasn't even going to talk about quotation today, but there it was organic and framed brillantly! From there I talked about the quote sandwich and telling your reader what you want them to notice in the quote. We then looked at the quotes in the student essay and noticed that one of the most important quotes did not do -- in its content -- what the writer claimed it did. We talked about what the writer would need to revise this.
In the last 5 minutes I asked the students what they could take away from this workshop and they discussed using quotes, saying why what they were doing was significant, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)