Qumana Test Run
This is my first post using Qumana. Hopefully, it will turn out okay. I am also going to try out the categories.Tags: literacy, blogging, tools, web2.0
Powered by Qumana
Literature Review
Penny Oldfather is an assistant professor at the University of Georgia in the elementary education department. Her focus is on qualitative research process that measure student motivation and constructivism in teaching and learning. This research is based on “41 open-ended in-depth interviews” with fourteen students. Its main focus was to study the students’ perceptions of their learning and motivation in a whole language classroom setting. She shares large portions of the student responses within the paper to demonstrate their ownership into the instructional strategy by all parties. One student comments, “Choices… encourage us to write… we get a less pressured feeling, which, believe it or not, leads us to write the longest paper we ever wrote” (1993). While I found this article very helpful in knowing what the teacher and students ran into while implementing whole language and its effect on voice in writing, I still felt there could have been a more direct distinction made on specific instruction. There was a broader focus on “choice” in general. For instance, there was a science project due. The teacher told the kids there was one due. The topic and the mode of presentation was left up to the students. It would have been helpful to see the teaching that went along with the project. There had to be instruction to keep it on track.
Marylyn Calabrese offers a glimpse into research that responds to the topic of how the focus of the instruction affects the voice in writing. This is more of a summary piece of other research than one specific piece of research. The process for gathering neither the initial data nor the summary of it is discussed. She neither quotes specific pieces, although she does mention outcomes. When a teacher spends more time on grammar and spelling, students cut short the creative process, thus eliminating the voice in the piece. Her comments on students becoming writers that are more effective when they focus on letting their voice create meaning are fitting for my research. She mostly discusses the effect that the overemphasis on avoiding errors has on the creativity. This part is helpful in that it lets me know that effective writing instruction would contain portions of this and not a focus on it during the early stages of the writing process.
Gary Troix and Mary Maddox used focus groups and rating scales to research the impacts on student writing outcomes. What they found was that the tighter the guidelines on the instructional process (i.e. district mandated curriculum guides that were underdeveloped or misaligned, too much content with too little time, etc.) had a large impact on the efficacy of the teacher. The educators, both general and special education, felt that students that wrote in all core areas had a greater ability to write reflectively in all areas. This is most interesting to me because until students can put thought to paper with ease as if it is second nature, voice will struggle to come out. Their recommendation to have general education and special education teachers work collaboratively to help middle school students become better writers was interesting to note and might have a little bearing on my final research since the tie between a writers’ workshop style of instruction and a more constrictive style of error checking has an effect on the final written product from a student. The qualitative measures used in this research will prove beneficial.
Grainger, Goouch, and Lambirth look into ongoing research that studies the impact of empowering teachers to develop their own voice in writing. The data collected was mostly qualitative while they were able to arrive at a level of quantitative analysis with some of the collected data. The initial stage collected student and teacher perceptions as well as samples of student writing. This was followed by focus groups to gather and examine data. Finally, collecting summative data and follow up samples from the earlier chosen students allowed the researchers to compare the outcomes. Interesting results from this research showed that the teachers felt they were not allowed to have creativity because so much of the decision-making in curriculum was taken out of their hands. In turn, they mainly prepared the students using the textbook resources and readied them for the standardized exam. Students also raised the question of exercising more choice in their writing as early as the third and fourth grades in this study. While the research was extended for an additional year, it is obvious that autonomy for the teachers and the students will bring about more creativity from choice. This is important for student development of voice in his/her writing.
Derek Soles postulates that educators should use a diverse set of instructional strategies in order to reach all of the different learning styles (as compiled by Howard Gardner) and personality types (as compiled by Isabel Briggs Myers). The critical conclusion from this research is that teachers need to use multiple methods of instruction in an attempt to allow students to experience effective writing since it requires creative, social, and cognitive processes. Students must use these skills fluently if voice is to be found in their writing. While the research is directed for higher education teachers, the results are still valid in public school settings. Students must become engaged in their writing for voice to appear. If content is presented in different styles, there is a better chance for students to become engaged. While the research does not appear to gather any new data on its own, the author collected data from multiple resources of previous bodies of work to draw the conclusions. It is still a viable source of information for me. It proves that Instructional strategies have a bearing on student engagement, which in turn drives creativity in writing which controls voice.
Richard Ferdig and Kaye Trammell present findings on how blogging offers educators another avenue for student engagement. Their gathering of resources provides the conclusion that blogs increase student interest and ownership in learning. Discussing Vygotsky’s learning theory about the parallels between knowledge construction and meaning-making through social process of language offers me insight into the importance of literacy in authentic applications. Placed into these authentic applications, students will be drawn into the process and create a personal tie to the content, thus improving the chances for voice to arise out of their writing. This correlates rather well with my own findings.
Donald Pardlow studied his students in his own composition course in an attempt to find the affect creative writing and writing freedom had on his students. While his qualitative research is formally limited to just five of the initial twenty-four students that enrolled in his course, it draws very interesting results discussing racial backgrounds and their influences on the characteristics of their writing. He drew many conclusions that would ultimately affect his instructional style. He concluded that this freer style of instruction gave his students the opportunity to “develop their voices as writers” (2003). Among other useful data, this supports my theory that choice allows voice to burgeon in student writing.
Mimi Schwartz’s writing, while not a research piece, guides the reader through the importance of finding voice. The process is hard to identify as any one thing, but Schwartz shares the words, rhythms, and attitudes needed to correctly choose the write voice for a piece of writing. Her concepts of voice in writing add a different view to choice in writing. She shares that choice controls the voice as well as kills it. If the writer, making his or her own choices, chooses wrong, then the reader will be turned off. Schwartz’s summary of this forces me to consider the process of teaching “choice” to students instead of just turning them loose on a piece of writing and standing back and hoping for the best.
Tom Romano, in his text Crafting Authentic Voice, offers much insight to voice. Again, while not a research piece of work, it cites many pieces of research that discuss multiple facets of voice creation and destruction. The destruction part is what I found interesting for my research. Students lose voice over the fear of the audience as much as anything else. While students may naturally write with voice, they need to feel the safety of the audience for which they write to not only hold on to the voice, but to allow it to blossom. The amount of information the student has to share will also affect voice. Too much or too little will compel the writer to force the writing. It comes as no surprise that Romano suggests quick writes as a solution to this problem offering the writer the chance to have pour out (or gush as Roman calls it) what is apparently the most pertinent information to the topic. This text offers much in the way of instructional direction for my research.
Barry Lane writes that “writers who write with voice constantly make choices that reflect a personal interest in their subject” (1993). In After the End: Teaching and Learning Creative Revision, Lane supports the belief that there must be choice and personal ownership in student writing for voice to make an appearance and that voice can be apparent in many types of writing. His belief that validating and valuing one’s students is the best way to begin teaching voice. Students need the approval of an authority to appreciate their own writing until they gain the confidence and knowledge to effectively introduce voice into all of their writings, regardless of style.
Each of these resources offer me an opportunity to better understand voice and the part it plays in writing instruction. Helping students find voice seems to be much easier than I initially anticipated due to the vast number of activities out there for educators. The activities were difficult to search out initially because so many of them are contained in collections of other works about the writing process. It is obvious that using a writer’s workshop form of teaching allows the student to have freedom in his or her writing while still having the support system in place from the teacher and peers. During the writing time, student will be able to write freely without the fear of failure in the chosen path. Reflective conferencing allows students to gain a personal connection with their own writing due to the questioning by their peers. Schwartz, Romano, and Lane offer me guidance within the scope of the classroom with strategies that have been proven to work. While they are not resources of direct research, they are the hands-on materials that a teacher needs to make appropriate choices. From Oldfather’s view on student motivation to Grainger’s (et.al.) view on teacher empowerment, the compiled research within my collection offers a diverse and woven view on literacy instruction and the voice within it.
Oldfather has a quote that reads, “Students said that having choice was one of the main reasons they felt so motivated to learn” (1993). I say it goes along with teacher action research as well. Knowing the processes this entails and having a run-through with it will encourage me to do more of my own. My goal for this coming school year is to use action research as it becomes necessary and publish an article on my findings within a professional journal. While I have had many newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and poetry published throughout my years, a scholarly journal article would be a new high for me. Until now, I never truly saw the need to share with others what I find in the classroom. Now I understand the importance. Why keep it to myself if it will benefit other teachers and students?
Categories: Literacy, Writing Process, Voice
Literature Review
Penny Oldfather is an assistant professor at the University of Georgia in the elementary education department. Her focus is on qualitative research process that measure student motivation and constructivism in teaching and learning. This research is based on “41 open-ended in-depth interviews” with fourteen students. Its main focus was to study the students’ perceptions of their learning and motivation in a whole language classroom setting. She shares large portions of the student responses within the paper to demonstrate their ownership into the instructional strategy by all parties. One student comments, “Choices… encourage us to write… we get a less pressured feeling, which, believe it or not, leads us to write the longest paper we ever wrote” (1993). While I found this article very helpful in knowing what the teacher and students ran into while implementing whole language and its effect on voice in writing, I still felt there could have been a more direct distinction made on specific instruction. There was a broader focus on “choice” in general. For instance, there was a science project due. The teacher told the kids there was one due. The topic and the mode of presentation was left up to the students. It would have been helpful to see the teaching that went along with the project. There had to be instruction to keep it on track.
Marylyn Calabrese offers a glimpse into research that responds to the topic of how the focus of the instruction affects the voice in writing. This is more of a summary piece of other research than one specific piece of research. The process for gathering neither the initial data nor the summary of it is discussed. She neither quotes specific pieces, although she does mention outcomes. When a teacher spends more time on grammar and spelling, students cut short the creative process, thus eliminating the voice in the piece. Her comments on students becoming writers that are more effective when they focus on letting their voice create meaning are fitting for my research. She mostly discusses the effect that the overemphasis on avoiding errors has on the creativity. This part is helpful in that it lets me know that effective writing instruction would contain portions of this and not a focus on it during the early stages of the writing process.
Gary Troix and Mary Maddox used focus groups and rating scales to research the impacts on student writing outcomes. What they found was that the tighter the guidelines on the instructional process (i.e. district mandated curriculum guides that were underdeveloped or misaligned, too much content with too little time, etc.) had a large impact on the efficacy of the teacher. The educators, both general and special education, felt that students that wrote in all core areas had a greater ability to write reflectively in all areas. This is most interesting to me because until students can put thought to paper with ease as if it is second nature, voice will struggle to come out. Their recommendation to have general education and special education teachers work collaboratively to help middle school students become better writers was interesting to note and might have a little bearing on my final research since the tie between a writers’ workshop style of instruction and a more constrictive style of error checking has an effect on the final written product from a student. The qualitative measures used in this research will prove beneficial.
Grainger, Goouch, and Lambirth look into ongoing research that studies the impact of empowering teachers to develop their own voice in writing. The data collected was mostly qualitative while they were able to arrive at a level of quantitative analysis with some of the collected data. The initial stage collected student and teacher perceptions as well as samples of student writing. This was followed by focus groups to gather and examine data. Finally, collecting summative data and follow up samples from the earlier chosen students allowed the researchers to compare the outcomes. Interesting results from this research showed that the teachers felt they were not allowed to have creativity because so much of the decision-making in curriculum was taken out of their hands. In turn, they mainly prepared the students using the textbook resources and readied them for the standardized exam. Students also raised the question of exercising more choice in their writing as early as the third and fourth grades in this study. While the research was extended for an additional year, it is obvious that autonomy for the teachers and the students will bring about more creativity from choice. This is important for student development of voice in his/her writing.
Derek Soles postulates that educators should use a diverse set of instructional strategies in order to reach all of the different learning styles (as compiled by Howard Gardner) and personality types (as compiled by Isabel Briggs Myers). The critical conclusion from this research is that teachers need to use multiple methods of instruction in an attempt to allow students to experience effective writing since it requires creative, social, and cognitive processes. Students must use these skills fluently if voice is to be found in their writing. While the research is directed for higher education teachers, the results are still valid in public school settings. Students must become engaged in their writing for voice to appear. If content is presented in different styles, there is a better chance for students to become engaged. While the research does not appear to gather any new data on its own, the author collected data from multiple resources of previous bodies of work to draw the conclusions. It is still a viable source of information for me. It proves that Instructional strategies have a bearing on student engagement, which in turn drives creativity in writing which controls voice.
Richard Ferdig and Kaye Trammell present findings on how blogging offers educators another avenue for student engagement. Their gathering of resources provides the conclusion that blogs increase student interest and ownership in learning. Discussing Vygotsky’s learning theory about the parallels between knowledge construction and meaning-making through social process of language offers me insight into the importance of literacy in authentic applications. Placed into these authentic applications, students will be drawn into the process and create a personal tie to the content, thus improving the chances for voice to arise out of their writing. This correlates rather well with my own findings.
Donald Pardlow studied his students in his own composition course in an attempt to find the affect creative writing and writing freedom had on his students. While his qualitative research is formally limited to just five of the initial twenty-four students that enrolled in his course, it draws very interesting results discussing racial backgrounds and their influences on the characteristics of their writing. He drew many conclusions that would ultimately affect his instructional style. He concluded that this freer style of instruction gave his students the opportunity to “develop their voices as writers” (2003). Among other useful data, this supports my theory that choice allows voice to burgeon in student writing.
Mimi Schwartz’s writing, while not a research piece, guides the reader through the importance of finding voice. The process is hard to identify as any one thing, but Schwartz shares the words, rhythms, and attitudes needed to correctly choose the write voice for a piece of writing. Her concepts of voice in writing add a different view to choice in writing. She shares that choice controls the voice as well as kills it. If the writer, making his or her own choices, chooses wrong, then the reader will be turned off. Schwartz’s summary of this forces me to consider the process of teaching “choice” to students instead of just turning them loose on a piece of writing and standing back and hoping for the best.
Tom Romano, in his text Crafting Authentic Voice, offers much insight to voice. Again, while not a research piece of work, it cites many pieces of research that discuss multiple facets of voice creation and destruction. The destruction part is what I found interesting for my research. Students lose voice over the fear of the audience as much as anything else. While students may naturally write with voice, they need to feel the safety of the audience for which they write to not only hold on to the voice, but to allow it to blossom. The amount of information the student has to share will also affect voice. Too much or too little will compel the writer to force the writing. It comes as no surprise that Romano suggests quick writes as a solution to this problem offering the writer the chance to have pour out (or gush as Roman calls it) what is apparently the most pertinent information to the topic. This text offers much in the way of instructional direction for my research.
Barry Lane writes that “writers who write with voice constantly make choices that reflect a personal interest in their subject” (1993). In After the End: Teaching and Learning Creative Revision, Lane supports the belief that there must be choice and personal ownership in student writing for voice to make an appearance and that voice can be apparent in many types of writing. His belief that validating and valuing one’s students is the best way to begin teaching voice. Students need the approval of an authority to appreciate their own writing until they gain the confidence and knowledge to effectively introduce voice into all of their writings, regardless of style.
Each of these resources offer me an opportunity to better understand voice and the part it plays in writing instruction. Helping students find voice seems to be much easier than I initially anticipated due to the vast number of activities out there for educators. The activities were difficult to search out initially because so many of them are contained in collections of other works about the writing process. It is obvious that using a writer’s workshop form of teaching allows the student to have freedom in his or her writing while still having the support system in place from the teacher and peers. During the writing time, student will be able to write freely without the fear of failure in the chosen path. Reflective conferencing allows students to gain a personal connection with their own writing due to the questioning by their peers. Schwartz, Romano, and Lane offer me guidance within the scope of the classroom with strategies that have been proven to work. While they are not resources of direct research, they are the hands-on materials that a teacher needs to make appropriate choices. From Oldfather’s view on student motivation to Grainger’s (et.al.) view on teacher empowerment, the compiled research within my collection offers a diverse and woven view on literacy instruction and the voice within it.
Oldfather has a quote that reads, “Students said that having choice was one of the main reasons they felt so motivated to learn” (1993). I say it goes along with teacher action research as well. Knowing the processes this entails and having a run-through with it will encourage me to do more of my own. My goal for this coming school year is to use action research as it becomes necessary and publish an article on my findings within a professional journal. While I have had many newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and poetry published throughout my years, a scholarly journal article would be a new high for me. Until now, I never truly saw the need to share with others what I find in the classroom. Now I understand the importance. Why keep it to myself if it will benefit other teachers and students?
Categories: Literacy, Writing Process, Voice
References for Lit Review
Literature Review References
Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the "blogosphere". T.H.E.Journal, 31(7), 12-12.
Grainger, T., Goouch, K., & Lambirth, A. (2002). The voice of the child: "we're writers" project. Reading: Literacy and Language, 36(3), 135-139.
Help student writers find 'their voices'. USA Today.
Lane, B. (1993). After the End: Teaching and Learning Creative Revision. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Oldfather, P. (1993). Students' perspectives on motivating experiences in literacy learning. perspectives in reading research no. 2. U.S.; Georgia.
Pardlow, D. (2003). Finding New Voices: Notes from a Descriptive Study of Why and how I Learned to use Creative-Writing Pedagogy to Empower My Composition Students--and Myself. U.S.; Georgia.
Romano, T. (2004). Crafting Authentic Voice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schwartz, M. (2006). Voice lessons. Writer, 119(6), 28-31.
Soles, D. (2003). An Eclectic Approach to the Teaching of Writing. U.S.; Pennsylvania.
Troia, G. A., & Maddox, M. E. (2004). Writing instruction in middle schools: Special and general education teachers share their views and voice their concerns. Exceptionality, 12(1), 19-37.
Categories: Literacy, Writing Process, Voice
Initial Voice Reference List
Voice References
Atwell, N. (2002). Lessons that Change Writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Blumberg, D. L. (2005). Helping teenage girls find their writing 'voices'. Christian Science Monitor, 97(176), 13-17.
Buzzeo, T. (2006). DIARY OF AN ANIMAL: Using a children's book as a springboard to collaboration. Library Media Connection, 24(5), 34-37.
Dumenco, S. (2006). Oh please, a blogger is just a writer with a cooler name. Advertising Age, 77(3), 18-18.
Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the "blogosphere". T.H.E.Journal, 31(7), 12-12.
Gould, B. J. Retrieved on 6/20/06 from http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/89q2/maylet.490.html.
Grainger, T., Goouch, K., & Lambirth, A. (2002). The voice of the child: "we're writers" project. Reading: Literacy and Language, 36(3), 135-139.
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Help student writers find 'their voices'. USA Today.
Jones, F. (2005). Writing group warm-up. Writer, 118(3), 9-9.
Kowalewski, E., Murphy, J., & Starns, M. (2002). Improving student writing in the elementary classroom.
Lane, B. (1993). After the End: Teaching and Learning Creative Revision. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
My brother, MYSELF.(2005). Scholastic Scope, 53(17), 12-13.
Oldfather, P. (1993). Students' perspectives on motivating experiences in literacy learning. perspectives in reading research no. 2. U.S.; Georgia.
Pardlow, D. (2003). Finding New Voices: Notes from a Descriptive Study of Why and how I Learned to use Creative-Writing Pedagogy to Empower My Composition Students--and Myself. U.S.; Georgia.
Reif, L. (2003). 100 Quickwrites. New York: Scholastic Teaching Resources.
Romano, T. (2004). Crafting Authentic Voice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Romano, T. (2004). The power of voice. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 20-20.
Rosaen, C. L., & And Others. (1992). Integration from the student perspective: Constructing meaning in a writers' workshop. elementary subjects center series no. 62. U.S.; Michigan:
Schwartz, M. (2006). Voice lessons. Writer, 119(6), 28-31.
Soles, D. (2003). An Eclectic Approach to the Teaching of Writing. U.S.; Pennsylvania.
Troia, G. A., & Maddox, M. E. (2004). Writing instruction in middle schools: Special and general education teachers share their views and voice their concerns. Exceptionality, 12(1), 19-37.
Warner, M. L. (2001). Winning ways of coaching writing : A practical guide for teaching writing, grades 6-12. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Categories: Literacy, Writing Process, Voice
Critical Incident
It’s not that I hated high school, really. It was a breeze. Not much challenge. I made the grades, and the teachers left me alone. The only vivid memory I have is all of the red ink left on my writing papers, but it didn’t change anything for me. I still made good grades whether I revised or not. The ink just seemed like a rite of passage to go through, so I lived through four years of it and nothing changed. I walked the stage passing from ho hum to what I expected to be more ho hum.
I arrived that first morning of college with few expectations. I mean, it was a small town junior college fifteen miles from my small town high school. What could they really have to offer me that I did not already have? As I drove in the parking lot, I readied myself for a long day. The disgustingly hot weather did nothing but ensure me that the day only offered a chance to sit in the air conditioner and wait out the clock.
My first class of the day was grammar and composition with Linda Jarvis at the helm. Older woman. Blue hair. Typical English teacher look, at least from my experiences. Her enthusiasm for the course was evident from the start as she read through the roster and syllabus in her monotone voice. Boy. She was as glad to be there as I was. “Assignments are due on the first class day of each week,” her voice droned on. “Late papers will only be accepted after one day at the cost of twenty-five percent,” she continued unenthusiastically.
Then something seemed to change in her demeanor, albeit slowly and quietly.
“Get out some paper and write me a note about your English experiences. Put it on the corner of my desk when you are through, and I will see you next time.”
She then sat down and proceeded to start scribbling something out in her notebook. We just sat there looking at each other as if we had been abandoned. Gradually, pencils scratching paper was heard throughout the room as thoughts became written words. We were busy with our first writing assignment. Dutifully, I took my time using every ounce of writing strategy I had learned in four years of high school English boot camp. I placed my paper in the appropriate spot on her desk and giddily left my first college class twenty minutes early. I loved the college life. What I did not know was that Mrs. Jarvis was setting me up for failure.
The second day of English class began much quicker than the first. After she took roll and assigned some work from the textbook, she began calling students to her office one by one. I initially figured it was her chance to meet each of us personally, but as I saw the sober looking faces come back in one at a time, I knew it was the first experience with the dreaded red pen.
It was my turn to head in to no man’s land. After watching those who went before me, I felt like a dead man walking. “If high school English teachers used the red pen, college English teachers had to use red markers,” I thought.
I walked the tiled hallways concerned with what I was about to confront. As I turned into her office, I was presented with the unexpected. She was smiling. “Okay,” I thought. “So she really enjoys the torture she places upon students. What a sicko.”
“Sit down, Mr. Floyd.”
Nobody ever called me mister before. I took it as a sign of respect and sat comfortably in the swivel chair opposite hers.
“Yes, Ma’am,” I replied, figuring my manners might get me some kind of reprieve.
“Mr. Floyd, you went to Henderson High School, didn’t you?” she asked. I just nodded affirmative. “Well it is obvious in the structure of your writing. All of the Henderson kids write like this. You are very structured and deliberate in your writing.”
I was grinning to myself at this point figuring this was a good thing. I was wrong. “All of that is wonderful if you are writing a research paper, Mr. Floyd, but it does nothing to let me hear what you have to say in your writing.”
Huh? What the heck? Hear what I have to say in my writing? Couldn’t she just read it like everyone else?
“Let me give it to you straight, Scott.”
Oh, shoot. She went to the first name. This couldn’t be good.
“You are a good writer. I can tell from what you turned in that you have a personality that just wants to come through here. Let it. Take some chances and see how it turns out. I want you to remember the rules of the road for grammar, but consider taking some detours some time. Any questions?”
Questions? You wouldn’t believe what was racing through my mind at this point. How long should it be then? So, spelling won’t count? What about losing twenty five points for using a fragment? I did what any respectable student would do at this point. I wiped the sweat from my forehead, wrung my hands in my lap, and boldly answered, “No, Ma’am.”
That basically ended the first in a series of what I have come to know as a writing conferences. It was at this point I understood the looks of horror on the faces of the other kids in class. It wasn’t the red pen scaring them to death. It was freedom. Freedom in writing is a terrifying thing when you have never had it before. Those were looks of terror, not from the red pen, but from the lack thereof. I was entering virgin territory, and I was scared to death.
I spent the next four months getting used to this new freedom. Fragments actually had a positive place in my writing. I could use the slang country terms in my writing that I grew up with. Mrs. Jarvis spent more time with me over the four papers I did for her that semester than any other English teacher ever had. It was an experience that matured my writing more than the previous four years in high school.
I went on to take several more of Linda Jarvis’s English classes. I went from being a business major to being an education major with an emphasis in English. Her outlook on writing began a new season of learning for me. I quickly realized that I could never know everything I needed to about writing regardless of how perfect my format and punctuation was. Not only did I grow as a writer, I grew as a teacher. My life had been changed as well as the lives of thousands of students to come.
Categories: Literacy, Writing Process, Voice
Pretty Awesome Week
I have to say that this was a pretty awesome week in class. We were able to create our own podcasts. While it wasn’t my first time to do this, it was still fun. I really enjoy helping the others out that have not messed with this type of learning tool as of yet. Not a one of them complained about it or said they would not use it. They are a group to be proud of, for sure.
I also get to go home this weekend for the first time in nearly three weeks. Yeah for me! My wife sounds like she could use a break. Trying to be both parents at the same time has to be wearing her out. I love her and appreciate her so much for allowing me the opportunity to take this program for five weeks. I have to give my son credit as well. For the most part, he has been stepping up and helping to make sure his momma is taken care of. I am proud of that. He starts kindergarten in a few months. Man, how the time has flown.
Anyway, this week in NWP allowed me to share my knowledge through the teacher demonstration as well as learn so much from the others in my class as they did their presentations. Thanks so much to all of you for being supportive during my presentation and teaching me so much during yours. I look forward to a long professional relationship with each of you even though we are long distance. We can make it work!
Have a great weekend, my friends.
Scott
Categories:
NWP
Reflecting on why I am not reflecting...and more
I hate that I have gotten so busy with my grad work that I have forgotten to post on this site. Reflection is such an important part to learning. I just need to slow down enough to reflect.
I have enjoyed the course so far. I think it is a little on the less-directed side. Some of the assignments are fairly open-ended which gives rise to concerns over whether what is being created is what is being asked for. Since it is a more laid-back atmosphere, to some extent, I would assume that there is always a chance to redo something that is not done as expected. That always helps the learning process.
I love the integration of technology into the training. More teacher training programs need to take notice of this. Teachers are getting left behind so badly because the professional development groups/responsible parties will not put it out there for teachers to see how useful it is. It is quite a shame, too. Our kids are missing out on so much good learning and conversation because of it. I guess it is our job to change that part of the system.
I was discussing something similar to this today with some colleagues at a meeting in Austin. We were lamenting the passing of funding for field trips that offered our students hands-on learning opportunities like museum trips. I just wish our state legislature would open their eyes and see how bad they are cheating the students of Texas. They are trying to create their political careers on the bashing public schools when they should be building their political careers by helping to build successful public schools. When was the last time a legislature set foot on your campus and simply said, “Hey, what do you need for your students to be successful?”
That’s what I thought.
Great Quote of the Day!
"How come almost everyone who writes about school reform works sompelace other than a school?" - Teacher-writer JoAnne Dowd quoted in an article on school reform by Boston Writing Project Director Joe Check (2002)
WOW! This is a powerful statement. I wonder that myself. I realize that those outside of a situation would have less bias, but they also would have less knowledge about the topic and the effects changes would have considering all of the different variables. You cannot institute a reform idea and just say "do it." You cannot institute a reform idea and just say "make them do it."
Public education does not work that way. We only have so much control over situations.
Those outside of public education do not understand this. They see a law as black and white and do not realize it has so many shades in between.
Will they ever spend any length of time in public school classrooms to see what is really happening? And I don't mean the gifted school with all self-motivated students either. While they deserve equal attention, they are not the average student we face each day.
Let's get this blog rolling!
I would first like to say how much I have thoroughly enjoyed this training already. The highlight has been meeting so many educators that love their students and want the best for them. I wish all teachers were this way. Open-mindedness with change in the classroom is not an easy trait to find in teachers. To have so many of you say that you are not good with technology yet you jump right into blogs in the hopes of using them with the students is just awesome. You get HUGE kudos for that.
I also enjoyed our time with Pete on Tuesday. I know I will learn so much from him and Scott over the next four Tuesdays with Technology. Since the kids love technology so much, it just drives me to learn and integrate more of it into my classroom. I want to engage them like they never thought possible.
Thank you all for accepting me into the Yaya Sisterhood we call BWP. I don't mind being the "brother" in the group. By the way, in my introduction I mentioned I had a high schooler's mentality in elementary school. My wife says that I still have it. No respect.
