Thursday, April 25, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Some questions from last week's readings
One issue I wanted to get back to was Puente in Cazden. Is it possible to have separate and equal education? I can see the advantages of this type of curriculum but wonder too if it's problematic how students are separated especially as we dig deeper into the diversity in our readings.
I'm also having trouble wrapping my head around Michaels and Sohmer's concept of inscription. How does it apply to a composition class?
I also would not mind fleshing out was Kalanttzis and Cope would work w/ more English/ comp contexts. Their contexts were interesting but the disciplines were different.
I'm also having trouble wrapping my head around Michaels and Sohmer's concept of inscription. How does it apply to a composition class?
I also would not mind fleshing out was Kalanttzis and Cope would work w/ more English/ comp contexts. Their contexts were interesting but the disciplines were different.
Engaging Diverse Adult Learners
Gleason, Barbara.. “Returning Adults to the Mainstream: Toward a Curriculum for Diverse Student Writers.” Mainstreaming Basic Writers: Politics and Pedagogies of Access. Ed. Gerry McNenny and Sallyanne Fitzgerald. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001. 121-143. Print.
Barbara Gleason states that remedial education is “inappropriate” for those returning to college after five plus years and presents an approach that acknowledges many diversities among students (121). Her criticism of remedial education is something my research affirms, although she’s chosen to define specifically mature returning students while most of what I’ve read asserts that remedial/non-credit coursework is problematic for college students of all ages.
Gleason notes the range of diversities among returning students including “age, gender, family, educational history, culture, social class, sexual orientation, and employment” (121). All of these diversities are relevant, especially in a large community college system such as my own (and not just for mature students).
Gleason proposes using specific genres including personal narratives and autoethnogoraphies in order to help instructors get to better know students and assist them in “entering the culture of college” adding that this approach can “pave the way for their acquisition of academic literacies” (121). These assignments, she later suggests, also help students form bonds among one another (126).
Gleason sees the composition class as a place where students learn both academic and mainstream culture (122). Many of her students write about their previous academic struggles and failures, which engages them in their own learning in a unique way.
Although Gleason’s approach focuses on working adults returning to the classroom, many of her strategies apply to the community college classroom. My courses have a wide range of students and Gleason shows an understanding of the complex problems students face when joining the academic realm. She explains, “Unlike many middle class, native English-speaking people, these students do not usually experience college as a natural extension of their home communities or even of high school” (123). Again, this concept doesn’t only apply mature students.
Gleason explains some of her initial writing assignments for her course, including an assignment where each student writes a letter articulating their feelings about returning to school and a questionnaire about their background. She calls on Louise Wetherbee Phelps to show that her role as instructor is to introduce students to “a lifelong process of literacy development” (122).
Gleason’s approach fits well with our readings for this week. Her approach involves beginning with personal/internal assignments and moving towards less/somewhat external assignments:
Gleason writes, “By inviting them to conduct interviews with one another during class, I encourage students to use their existing language forms as a bridge to acquiring academic styles of thinking, talking, and writing (126). Her attitude dovetails well with the points that Lo Bianco and Gutierrez make about multilingualism as an advantage that can lead to greater meaning making.
Gleason’s article offers insight for instructors working with mature returning students but really emphasizes an understanding of the variety of diversities within almost any course. Her assignments seem to transition students from the personal to external in a way that engages that diversity.
Barbara Gleason states that remedial education is “inappropriate” for those returning to college after five plus years and presents an approach that acknowledges many diversities among students (121). Her criticism of remedial education is something my research affirms, although she’s chosen to define specifically mature returning students while most of what I’ve read asserts that remedial/non-credit coursework is problematic for college students of all ages.
Gleason notes the range of diversities among returning students including “age, gender, family, educational history, culture, social class, sexual orientation, and employment” (121). All of these diversities are relevant, especially in a large community college system such as my own (and not just for mature students).
Gleason proposes using specific genres including personal narratives and autoethnogoraphies in order to help instructors get to better know students and assist them in “entering the culture of college” adding that this approach can “pave the way for their acquisition of academic literacies” (121). These assignments, she later suggests, also help students form bonds among one another (126).
Gleason sees the composition class as a place where students learn both academic and mainstream culture (122). Many of her students write about their previous academic struggles and failures, which engages them in their own learning in a unique way.
Although Gleason’s approach focuses on working adults returning to the classroom, many of her strategies apply to the community college classroom. My courses have a wide range of students and Gleason shows an understanding of the complex problems students face when joining the academic realm. She explains, “Unlike many middle class, native English-speaking people, these students do not usually experience college as a natural extension of their home communities or even of high school” (123). Again, this concept doesn’t only apply mature students.
Gleason explains some of her initial writing assignments for her course, including an assignment where each student writes a letter articulating their feelings about returning to school and a questionnaire about their background. She calls on Louise Wetherbee Phelps to show that her role as instructor is to introduce students to “a lifelong process of literacy development” (122).
Gleason’s approach fits well with our readings for this week. Her approach involves beginning with personal/internal assignments and moving towards less/somewhat external assignments:
- a language/literacy autobiography
- a storytelling and a story writing multitask project
- a student interview report
- an ethnogrpahy research writing project
Gleason writes, “By inviting them to conduct interviews with one another during class, I encourage students to use their existing language forms as a bridge to acquiring academic styles of thinking, talking, and writing (126). Her attitude dovetails well with the points that Lo Bianco and Gutierrez make about multilingualism as an advantage that can lead to greater meaning making.
Gleason’s article offers insight for instructors working with mature returning students but really emphasizes an understanding of the variety of diversities within almost any course. Her assignments seem to transition students from the personal to external in a way that engages that diversity.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Mainstreaming and ESL Students
Smoke, Trudy. “Mainstreaming Writing: What Does This Mean for ESL Students?” Mainstreaming Basic Writers: Politics and Pedagogies of Access. Ed. Gerry McNenny and Sallyanne Fitzgerald. Mahwah, Nj: Erlbaum, 2001. 193-214. Print.
Smoke discusses mainstreaming ESL students into regular credit courses. She provides several models for mainstreaming, some of which involve separating ESL students into their own sections or presenting varying percentages of ESL to NSE students within individual courses.
Both CUNY and Cal State encouraged students to engage very specifically in how they fit within a larger educational context. I think this relates well to the New London Group’s schema for multiliteracies education as well as Bartholomae’s argument that students constantly invent the university whenever they engage in academic work.
Smoke summarizes Purdue’s Tony Silva. He discusses the complexities of separating ESL students, ultimately recommending balancing ESL and native speakers together in courses. Smoke concludes with a recommendation that institutions consider their individual populations and also advises more prescriptive placement based on individual background and assessment (208-211). While this certainly could be effective, institutions like mine simply don’t have the resources for that.
One concern that arose within Smoke was the problem with student registration and the fact that registration software does not allow colleges to enforce enrollment in specific classes or set prerequisites for other classes. My institution faces that problem and instructors must go through complex reports in order to determine whether students are indeed enrolled in the correct courses.
I was surprised by the idea that ESL students were segregated from native speakers in some programs as we also saw in Cazden with Puente. Beyond seeming unequal, it’s also difficult administratively, something she acknowledges.
One criticism I have is that Smoke writes that pedagogical approaches should be developed but doesn’t suggest how ESL students can specifically be mainstreamed into writing classes.
Instructors at diverse institutions will find Smoke’s background, discussion, and dilemmas of mainstreaming ESL students helpful. Institutions need to tailor their approaches to their own student bodies. At the same time, it’s still not clear exactly how this instruction can be most effective.
Smoke discusses mainstreaming ESL students into regular credit courses. She provides several models for mainstreaming, some of which involve separating ESL students into their own sections or presenting varying percentages of ESL to NSE students within individual courses.
- At Arizona State University, the Stretch Program requires students do additional papers and portfolios and work more closely with faculty on drafts (204-205).
- The University of South Carolina utilizes a Writing Studio where small groups meet weekly and blend ESL and NSE students (205-206)
- The University of Arizona, Tuscon sets forth three guiding principles: that students self-select into the course, an ideal ratio of ⅔ non-native to ⅓ native speakers, and that teachers need a background in ESL (206).
- At California State University, Chico, “students ‘construct the history, present, and future of their relationship with the university and the united states’” (207).
- At City College, CUNY, an “Enrichment” model demonstrated that ESL students were competitive with other students and their work “demonstrated an ability to evaluate their own writing, to reveal growth over time in a portfolio, and to conduct research inside and outside the college library...” (qtd. in Smoke 207). They conclude that “the question of whether ESL students should be mainstreamed or placed in separate sections of freshman composition has not been entirely resolved” (207-208).
Both CUNY and Cal State encouraged students to engage very specifically in how they fit within a larger educational context. I think this relates well to the New London Group’s schema for multiliteracies education as well as Bartholomae’s argument that students constantly invent the university whenever they engage in academic work.
Smoke summarizes Purdue’s Tony Silva. He discusses the complexities of separating ESL students, ultimately recommending balancing ESL and native speakers together in courses. Smoke concludes with a recommendation that institutions consider their individual populations and also advises more prescriptive placement based on individual background and assessment (208-211). While this certainly could be effective, institutions like mine simply don’t have the resources for that.
One concern that arose within Smoke was the problem with student registration and the fact that registration software does not allow colleges to enforce enrollment in specific classes or set prerequisites for other classes. My institution faces that problem and instructors must go through complex reports in order to determine whether students are indeed enrolled in the correct courses.
I was surprised by the idea that ESL students were segregated from native speakers in some programs as we also saw in Cazden with Puente. Beyond seeming unequal, it’s also difficult administratively, something she acknowledges.
One criticism I have is that Smoke writes that pedagogical approaches should be developed but doesn’t suggest how ESL students can specifically be mainstreamed into writing classes.
Instructors at diverse institutions will find Smoke’s background, discussion, and dilemmas of mainstreaming ESL students helpful. Institutions need to tailor their approaches to their own student bodies. At the same time, it’s still not clear exactly how this instruction can be most effective.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
What Is Literacy?
So far, we've examined a multiplicity of definitions of literacy. Graff's historical survey reflects literacy as an individual's ability to read and write and a way to homogenize populations. Some of the authors we have examined really view literacy as an individual's entrance into a specific field of discourse as Haas demonstrates and Gee discusses. These authors show literacy as dependent on context. Cope and Kalantzis as well as Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola really define literacy in a more broad and (and sometimes technology-centered) vision where multiple literacies exist, evolve, and are really dependent on the user.
Adams, Peter, et al. "The Accelerated Learning Program:Throwing Open The Gates." Journal Of Basic Writing 28.2 (2009): 50-69. Education Research Complete. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
Adams, et al. begin by describing their vision of the historical ideologies that surround remedial writing courses (as gates to keep students out or as paths to success) (50). Adams, et al. pose the question: “What would happen... if’... we could mainstream them [remedial students] directly into first-year composition, while also providing appropriate support to help them succeed?” (53). The article makes a strong case for why writing programs should consider the ALP (Accelerated Learning Program) model.
Adams, et al. reflect basic writing’s current desire to “mainstream” remedial writers, meaning place them directly in college-level courses rather than remedial, non-credit coursework. Fox also demonstrates this with his work at Cal State Chico.
I agree with Adams’ criticism of remedial courses as often gates that keep students out of college composition courses, but I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing as the authors seem to indicate. I continue to struggle with the idea that I think not all students are really ready for college-level work. It goes against what many of us think as educators (that everyone should go to college and everyone has the opportunity to succeed), but I also feel challenged when I have students who seem to need more help than my time constraints or training allow. I am concerned that some students are set up for failure when they’re placed in a class that may be beyond their current abilities. Adams, et al. present their ALP model as a solution, but I am left wanting more information about how these programs can be successful as their article clearly addresses the why.
This article may be helpful for readers looking for a narrative description of the observations and processes that brought CCBC faculty to the ALP model as well as the administrative and financial challenges of implementing an ALP.
CCBC’s model does present a truer sense of mainstreaming than my institution in that remedial students are combined with students who may not need additional instruction. The remedial students participate in a smaller supplemental section immediately following the course. (My institution creates separate courses entirely and supplemental courses are the same large size). One reason behind keeping students with non developmental students is that the students “serve as role models for the basic writers” (57). Adams, et al. give some credit to cohorts and learning communities for their model (60). One point Adams, et al. make is that “both learning communities and studio courses credit some of their success to the fact that students are learning about writing in a meaningful context” (61).
I had hoped to gain a stronger sense of what faculty actually do in these supplemental sections. Adams, et al. give a very brief description of what might go on but don’t offer much in the way of details regarding best practices. It seems similar to Cal State Chico’s model, but perhaps less student-directed. I will continue to research how mainstreaming can work effectively within the supplemental classroom.
Adams, et al. begin by describing their vision of the historical ideologies that surround remedial writing courses (as gates to keep students out or as paths to success) (50). Adams, et al. pose the question: “What would happen... if’... we could mainstream them [remedial students] directly into first-year composition, while also providing appropriate support to help them succeed?” (53). The article makes a strong case for why writing programs should consider the ALP (Accelerated Learning Program) model.
Adams, et al. reflect basic writing’s current desire to “mainstream” remedial writers, meaning place them directly in college-level courses rather than remedial, non-credit coursework. Fox also demonstrates this with his work at Cal State Chico.
I agree with Adams’ criticism of remedial courses as often gates that keep students out of college composition courses, but I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing as the authors seem to indicate. I continue to struggle with the idea that I think not all students are really ready for college-level work. It goes against what many of us think as educators (that everyone should go to college and everyone has the opportunity to succeed), but I also feel challenged when I have students who seem to need more help than my time constraints or training allow. I am concerned that some students are set up for failure when they’re placed in a class that may be beyond their current abilities. Adams, et al. present their ALP model as a solution, but I am left wanting more information about how these programs can be successful as their article clearly addresses the why.
This article may be helpful for readers looking for a narrative description of the observations and processes that brought CCBC faculty to the ALP model as well as the administrative and financial challenges of implementing an ALP.
CCBC’s model does present a truer sense of mainstreaming than my institution in that remedial students are combined with students who may not need additional instruction. The remedial students participate in a smaller supplemental section immediately following the course. (My institution creates separate courses entirely and supplemental courses are the same large size). One reason behind keeping students with non developmental students is that the students “serve as role models for the basic writers” (57). Adams, et al. give some credit to cohorts and learning communities for their model (60). One point Adams, et al. make is that “both learning communities and studio courses credit some of their success to the fact that students are learning about writing in a meaningful context” (61).
I had hoped to gain a stronger sense of what faculty actually do in these supplemental sections. Adams, et al. give a very brief description of what might go on but don’t offer much in the way of details regarding best practices. It seems similar to Cal State Chico’s model, but perhaps less student-directed. I will continue to research how mainstreaming can work effectively within the supplemental classroom.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Abandoning Basic Writing: A New Model
Rodby, Judith, and Tom Fox. "Basic Work and Material Acts: The Ironies, Discrepancies,
and Disjunctures of Basic Writing and Mainstreaming." Journal of Basic Writing 19.1
(2000): 84-98. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.
Rodby and Fox’ main arguments are that students learn to do college writing by being in college writing courses (rather than basic writing courses) and that learning to write is not a discrete skill but a practice (84). The authors begin by framing what they see as the inherent ironies of basic writing and note the political motives they see as creating this inequality (84-85). Basic writing, write Rodby and Fox, discourages students because students do not earn credits for the courses. In addition, the authors also challenge the assumption that writing simple modes prepares students for college work (85-86). In a sense, they’re saying that basic writing courses breed basic writers (86). Instead, students can rise to the level of college writing if they are situated in that context: “...context powerfully affects what writers do” (87). At Cal State Chico, basic writing disappeared with little fanfare and students who would have originally placed into basic writing courses were placed into college courses with a separate adjunct writing workshop (88). One dilemma the authors note is that ESL students are often placed in basic writing courses although they argue that ESL is a distinctly different area that does not determine basic writing level (90). In adjunct workshops, students have the opportunity to mingle with other writers outside the context of their own composition classroom. They are more free to struggle and work through ideas in an atmosphere where they are not being graded by their composition instructor. It creates a collaborative atmosphere where students direct the workshop and model writing for each other (91-96). The authors “have abandoned the notion that we can teach writing in any generic sense” (91).
I agree that ESL students should not automatically be placed as basic writers. However, I think their statement should acknowledge the complexities of cultural differences about writing. In my experience, this is somewhat western and some students struggle with concepts like thesis or authorship.
What intrigued me in particular was the way Cal State Chico ran their workshops. At my institution, writing labs are distinctly connected with the courses and taught by the same instructors.
Rodby and Fox state that the traditional composition class denies students of their agency and that the adjunct writing workshops allow students to take that back in a different atmosphere. I hope that most composition courses actually give students agency, but I can see how this is problematic and think we should consider other models.
Finally, my experience in assessment also demonstrates that writing courses do not necessarily teach skills that transfer from one course to the next. My committee work assesses both courses in our comp sequence and we actually observed a drop in scores between the two.
I would recommend this article to my peers who teach composition with additional writing instruction. The notion that basic writing is inherently problematic is something I want to continue to explore as I read and connect ideas about supplementary instruction for composition courses.
and Disjunctures of Basic Writing and Mainstreaming." Journal of Basic Writing 19.1
(2000): 84-98. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.
Rodby and Fox’ main arguments are that students learn to do college writing by being in college writing courses (rather than basic writing courses) and that learning to write is not a discrete skill but a practice (84). The authors begin by framing what they see as the inherent ironies of basic writing and note the political motives they see as creating this inequality (84-85). Basic writing, write Rodby and Fox, discourages students because students do not earn credits for the courses. In addition, the authors also challenge the assumption that writing simple modes prepares students for college work (85-86). In a sense, they’re saying that basic writing courses breed basic writers (86). Instead, students can rise to the level of college writing if they are situated in that context: “...context powerfully affects what writers do” (87). At Cal State Chico, basic writing disappeared with little fanfare and students who would have originally placed into basic writing courses were placed into college courses with a separate adjunct writing workshop (88). One dilemma the authors note is that ESL students are often placed in basic writing courses although they argue that ESL is a distinctly different area that does not determine basic writing level (90). In adjunct workshops, students have the opportunity to mingle with other writers outside the context of their own composition classroom. They are more free to struggle and work through ideas in an atmosphere where they are not being graded by their composition instructor. It creates a collaborative atmosphere where students direct the workshop and model writing for each other (91-96). The authors “have abandoned the notion that we can teach writing in any generic sense” (91).
I agree that ESL students should not automatically be placed as basic writers. However, I think their statement should acknowledge the complexities of cultural differences about writing. In my experience, this is somewhat western and some students struggle with concepts like thesis or authorship.
What intrigued me in particular was the way Cal State Chico ran their workshops. At my institution, writing labs are distinctly connected with the courses and taught by the same instructors.
Rodby and Fox state that the traditional composition class denies students of their agency and that the adjunct writing workshops allow students to take that back in a different atmosphere. I hope that most composition courses actually give students agency, but I can see how this is problematic and think we should consider other models.
Finally, my experience in assessment also demonstrates that writing courses do not necessarily teach skills that transfer from one course to the next. My committee work assesses both courses in our comp sequence and we actually observed a drop in scores between the two.
I would recommend this article to my peers who teach composition with additional writing instruction. The notion that basic writing is inherently problematic is something I want to continue to explore as I read and connect ideas about supplementary instruction for composition courses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)