As I was reading some of the other blogs, I noticed a couple people were thinking about connecting their literacies of music with writing. When Trixie first brought this connection up in class, I did not think that I would be able to relate to it much. I love music and listen to it daily. I also took band all through high school playing the Flute, but I never really put much thought into my ability to read and perform music.
When I sat down to write my literacy narrative, I began writing about my childhood and thinking about some of the first literacies I developed. I concentrated on the ones that I felt passionate about. I was surprised to find music did appear in my paper. As I kept writing I was surprised to find many connections with music and writing. I concentrated on how my mind worked, the different aspects involved in reading and performing music, and how these could relate to writing as well. I'm not sure if this helps anyone who was struggling with the idea of connecting music with writing, but I was very surprised to find its appearance in my literacy narrative.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Two Leading Observations
I had two consulting sessions today that I wanted to share my reactions about. I thought my first client was going to be a no-show, and I was surprised when he sauntered in after over half an hour. I don’t know if this is me being overly sensitive, but I got the impression that he didn’t care that he was late, or that he was making my job as a consultant more difficult. His late arrival didn’t leave us with much time to go over his five page formal paper, but I decided to make the best of it. He expressed the usual concerns about grammar and mechanics, but also wanted to make sure he had fully developed his argument. He had been to the Writing Center before and was familiar with the normal way sessions are conducted, but this meeting was a bit different. Rather than having him read his paper aloud to hear any mistakes for himself, I skimmed the paper to get a sense of his argument. I tried to address a few key Higher Order Concerns that were interfering with the overall clarity, but he seemed resistive. Every time I tried explaining how a particular issue was unclear or hindered his argument, he balked at making any changes. I wasn’t trying to force him to do anything, but I wanted him to understand how, as a reader, I was confused.
As the session started winding down and it was clear we wouldn’t be able to cover everything, I switched tactics. I had him look at each of his paragraphs and decide on what its main theme was. Then we looked at his introduction and conclusion, and decided if they included these points. My goal was to get him to examine the way he had structured his argument and determine if the conclusion he had made was the one he had been going for, and if he had covered all of his bases. Overall, it was far from an ideal session. We were both rushed and I feel like our communication kept breaking down. When the student left, he seemed fairly satisfied, but I don’t think this session compared favorably to his earlier experiences with the Center.
My second session also showed up half an hour late, but she clearly had been running to get there. She was obviously very stressed and I did my best to help her calm down. The paper she brought in was due in two hours (which probably explains why she was so stressed). She was an ESL student and she stated that she just wanted someone to check her grammar. I explained that I would look over her paper and address the most significant concerns, and if grammar fell into that category, so be it. As it turned out, grammar was a major factor affecting the clarity of the piece. Though as consultants we are taught to try to see beyond issues of mechanics, I was forced to take a more directive approach than usual. As a result, when there was a major shift in language between the first and second paragraphs, I had reason to take notice. Apparently she simply inserted the abstract from an article, changed a handful of words, and labeled it her summary. I tried explaining to concept of plagiarism and the necessity for paraphrasing and proper citation, and she seemed surprised that the rules were “so strict.” When I asked what citation style she was supposed to use, she revealed that she had never even heard of MLA or APA. To say that I was both dumbfounded would be an understatement. I’m well aware that different cultures have different ideas about plagiarism, but I couldn’t believe that none of her other classes at MSU had ever mentioned plagiarism or citation. I tried to get her to think about ways she could rephrase things, but she didn’t understand why she needed to make changes when the original author said it so perfectly. Finally, I was forced to end the session because it was after 5 o’clock. I tried impressing upon her one last time the severity of plagiarism, and the importance of changing the problematic paragraph before she submitted her paper. I can only hope she took my advice.
As the session started winding down and it was clear we wouldn’t be able to cover everything, I switched tactics. I had him look at each of his paragraphs and decide on what its main theme was. Then we looked at his introduction and conclusion, and decided if they included these points. My goal was to get him to examine the way he had structured his argument and determine if the conclusion he had made was the one he had been going for, and if he had covered all of his bases. Overall, it was far from an ideal session. We were both rushed and I feel like our communication kept breaking down. When the student left, he seemed fairly satisfied, but I don’t think this session compared favorably to his earlier experiences with the Center.
My second session also showed up half an hour late, but she clearly had been running to get there. She was obviously very stressed and I did my best to help her calm down. The paper she brought in was due in two hours (which probably explains why she was so stressed). She was an ESL student and she stated that she just wanted someone to check her grammar. I explained that I would look over her paper and address the most significant concerns, and if grammar fell into that category, so be it. As it turned out, grammar was a major factor affecting the clarity of the piece. Though as consultants we are taught to try to see beyond issues of mechanics, I was forced to take a more directive approach than usual. As a result, when there was a major shift in language between the first and second paragraphs, I had reason to take notice. Apparently she simply inserted the abstract from an article, changed a handful of words, and labeled it her summary. I tried explaining to concept of plagiarism and the necessity for paraphrasing and proper citation, and she seemed surprised that the rules were “so strict.” When I asked what citation style she was supposed to use, she revealed that she had never even heard of MLA or APA. To say that I was both dumbfounded would be an understatement. I’m well aware that different cultures have different ideas about plagiarism, but I couldn’t believe that none of her other classes at MSU had ever mentioned plagiarism or citation. I tried to get her to think about ways she could rephrase things, but she didn’t understand why she needed to make changes when the original author said it so perfectly. Finally, I was forced to end the session because it was after 5 o’clock. I tried impressing upon her one last time the severity of plagiarism, and the importance of changing the problematic paragraph before she submitted her paper. I can only hope she took my advice.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Blog #5
The two class discussions and activities complimented each other very well. Monday during class we discussed an article by Flower and Hayes called: “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”, and Wednesday in class we did an activity where we created our own personal literacy time lines. These two discussions may not seem like they relate all that much, but they certainly did to me.
Flower and Hays’ article depicts a figure, or drawing, of the writing process. The different ideas, steps, and stages that each and every writer is thought to go through with each and every piece of writing. The graph is very linear and restricts a lot of back-to-back or diagonal movements. After looking at the graph and studying the different steps and process that according to the authors I am going through right now I found myself rather confused and perplexed at the process and the theory. I did not, and do not, believe it at all. I did realize that it is important for us to study this figure because I felt that it revealed the absurdity of attempting to label and explain the complicated writing process in very all-inclusive terms. Studying this graph proved the absurdity of trying to label and define the writing process.
Wednesday’s activity was creating a timeline that started at out birth and ended at present day and we were supposed to go through and label when we thought we developed different reading and writing literacies. Once we completed this we went through and in a different color ink we labeled when we developed different types of literacies such as cultural, music, foreign languages, religious, and body communication. This activity revealed to me how many differences we all have when it comes to literacies; what has influenced our literacies, what has influenced our background, and all in all what has helped create who we are now.
Looking back on Monday’s discussing after Wednesday’s activity I was struck at how full circle it all seemed to me. By looking at and understanding all of the different backgrounds that people have, all of the different literacies they know, and all of the different pieces of life that have brought them to where they are today further revealed to me the absurdity of Flower and Hays’ figure. With all of the different backgrounds and literacies that people have it is absolutely impossible for people to follow the same writing process. There is no way that one process can fit the needs of all of the writers with all of their different backgrounds and influences.
Flower and Hays’ article depicts a figure, or drawing, of the writing process. The different ideas, steps, and stages that each and every writer is thought to go through with each and every piece of writing. The graph is very linear and restricts a lot of back-to-back or diagonal movements. After looking at the graph and studying the different steps and process that according to the authors I am going through right now I found myself rather confused and perplexed at the process and the theory. I did not, and do not, believe it at all. I did realize that it is important for us to study this figure because I felt that it revealed the absurdity of attempting to label and explain the complicated writing process in very all-inclusive terms. Studying this graph proved the absurdity of trying to label and define the writing process.
Wednesday’s activity was creating a timeline that started at out birth and ended at present day and we were supposed to go through and label when we thought we developed different reading and writing literacies. Once we completed this we went through and in a different color ink we labeled when we developed different types of literacies such as cultural, music, foreign languages, religious, and body communication. This activity revealed to me how many differences we all have when it comes to literacies; what has influenced our literacies, what has influenced our background, and all in all what has helped create who we are now.
Looking back on Monday’s discussing after Wednesday’s activity I was struck at how full circle it all seemed to me. By looking at and understanding all of the different backgrounds that people have, all of the different literacies they know, and all of the different pieces of life that have brought them to where they are today further revealed to me the absurdity of Flower and Hays’ figure. With all of the different backgrounds and literacies that people have it is absolutely impossible for people to follow the same writing process. There is no way that one process can fit the needs of all of the writers with all of their different backgrounds and influences.
Satellite Observation #2 - Library
I worked with the same consultant for my second observation today. The client was also an ESL student, and she had an essay for a graduate school application that she wanted to go over to "refine" her writing. Again, the consultant explained that they would mostly look at structure, content, etc., and then go over grammar and sentence structure if there was time at the end of the session.
The consultant read the paper aloud this time, and where he saw larger problems he simply drew a star in the margin to come back to it rather than interrupting his reading (he also explained to the client what the stars were for). The main thing this student needed to work on was clarifying a few vague terms that she used in her introduction and conclusion but did not refer to in the body of the essay. To help organize the essay better, the consultant flipped the paper over and made a quick outline for her to follow. He made a numbered list of the topics she wanted to discuss in her essay, and then pointed out how she should go through these items in order in the body of her paper, then summarize briefly in her conclusion. The student understood immediately.
Overall, I think the writing center environment in the library normally would have been very similar to the main office, but today was an unusual day since the consultant I observed was late and somewhat rushed his first session, and then another consultant didn't show up at all, so many of the sessions were interrupted by clients wondering where their consultant was. Since these consultants are prepared for the half-hour instead of hour-long sessions, I don't think that actual length of the session had anything to do with it.
The consultant read the paper aloud this time, and where he saw larger problems he simply drew a star in the margin to come back to it rather than interrupting his reading (he also explained to the client what the stars were for). The main thing this student needed to work on was clarifying a few vague terms that she used in her introduction and conclusion but did not refer to in the body of the essay. To help organize the essay better, the consultant flipped the paper over and made a quick outline for her to follow. He made a numbered list of the topics she wanted to discuss in her essay, and then pointed out how she should go through these items in order in the body of her paper, then summarize briefly in her conclusion. The student understood immediately.
Overall, I think the writing center environment in the library normally would have been very similar to the main office, but today was an unusual day since the consultant I observed was late and somewhat rushed his first session, and then another consultant didn't show up at all, so many of the sessions were interrupted by clients wondering where their consultant was. Since these consultants are prepared for the half-hour instead of hour-long sessions, I don't think that actual length of the session had anything to do with it.
Satellite Observation #1 - Library
The consultant I observed today had five years of consulting experience, and was by far the best consultant I've shadowed. The session was with an ESL student who wanted to go over an annotated bibliography for grammar and to make sure his sentences made sense. However, this was the first time I've heard a tutor actually say, "Normally what we do is focus on content," and that grammar would be a secondary concern.
The real thing that made this session the most productive one I've seen was the level of the client's involvement in it. The consultant constantly asked him questions and made sure he understood before moving on to something else, and he employed a wide variety of techniques to help the student clarify his own writing. For example, when a sentence was too confusing, the consultant had the client say, out loud, just what he was trying to describe on paper. The consultant actually covered up the paper as the client spoke and told him, "Don't look at the paper, look at me." He then had the client write down what he had just said on another piece of paper. The student even remarked how helpful this technique was.
Another thing this consultant did was ask questions that allowed the client to figure things out on his own. For example, there were some verb tense issues in the paper, and the consultant would point out specific words and ask, "What tense is this?" to draw the client's attention to it. Actually involving the student in identifying grammatical errors seemed much more productive than the usual method of simply the consultant simply pointing out the problems, fixing them, and moving on.
A final thing that made this session unique was the consultant's recognition of the fact that there was more than one way to go about solving some of the problems within the paper. More than once he explained two different ways to correct the same error, and told the student it was up to him. I've haven't yet seen a consultant use so much patience or employ so many techniques when working with an ESL student. Obviously it takes time to acquire sure a repertoire since this consultant has been doing it for five years, but I hope I remember to be as varied and open-minded when I start co-consulting next week.
The real thing that made this session the most productive one I've seen was the level of the client's involvement in it. The consultant constantly asked him questions and made sure he understood before moving on to something else, and he employed a wide variety of techniques to help the student clarify his own writing. For example, when a sentence was too confusing, the consultant had the client say, out loud, just what he was trying to describe on paper. The consultant actually covered up the paper as the client spoke and told him, "Don't look at the paper, look at me." He then had the client write down what he had just said on another piece of paper. The student even remarked how helpful this technique was.
Another thing this consultant did was ask questions that allowed the client to figure things out on his own. For example, there were some verb tense issues in the paper, and the consultant would point out specific words and ask, "What tense is this?" to draw the client's attention to it. Actually involving the student in identifying grammatical errors seemed much more productive than the usual method of simply the consultant simply pointing out the problems, fixing them, and moving on.
A final thing that made this session unique was the consultant's recognition of the fact that there was more than one way to go about solving some of the problems within the paper. More than once he explained two different ways to correct the same error, and told the student it was up to him. I've haven't yet seen a consultant use so much patience or employ so many techniques when working with an ESL student. Obviously it takes time to acquire sure a repertoire since this consultant has been doing it for five years, but I hope I remember to be as varied and open-minded when I start co-consulting next week.
Leading sessions
This past Wednesday I led my first sessions at Bessey. My first client was a girl whose teacher had already seen and written comments on her paper. The teacher had had a number of issues with the piece and wrote on the last page that the student should "[s]ee Writing Center for help." The student was supposed to write a paper comparing characteristics of a famous person (in a book that her class had read) to her own characteristics. The girl had chosen two dominant traits of a scientist in the book (his tendency to lie to make things easier for himself and the tough treatment he gave those who worked under him) and wrote about the scientist first, then compared herself second. The teacher had written that she did not like the way the paper was organized and suggested the student write an outline in the beginning to clarify the way the paper would be set up. The teacher also repeatedly wrote that the student needed to use simpler language. The student read sections of the paper aloud for me, and we went through each section, identifying some smaller content issues as we worked. After reading the entire paper (it was four pages long), we read the teacher's closing comments before going back to the beginning of the paper to work on the organization. We first discussed the teacher's suggestion of an outline and the fact that in this case, what the teacher really seemed to want (and what was lacking in the opening paragraph) was a clear statement of the purpose and design of the paper. Following that, we talked about ways to make the organization stronger, which mostly involved moving some ideas to different sections of the paper and moving or removing some confusing quotations. The student and I connected well about the difficulties of the paper and she was quick to understand anything I tried to explain. One thing we both struggled with was the teacher's request to simplify the wording of the paper. The student complained that she had already simplified as much as she understood how to do and that it now sounded like fifth grade writing. I could see why she thought that. The wording of the piece was indeed very simple and clear, and the few suggestions from her teacher as to how to simplify further did not seem logical or consistent. Based on what I read, I gave a few suggestions for ways to possibly make her sentences simpler (though it seemed mostly like unnecessary re-wording), and then we moved on to some issues that both of us thought were more practical things to focus on (though I did not say that). I felt myself being "the ally" at times during the session--we were both confused about how to resolve some of the teacher's problems with the paper but did the best we could make it stronger overall. I was also "the coach," encouraging her through the reorganization of her paper. In the end, the student thanked me several times and left the session looking much less frustrated than she had coming in. It was overall a very good first tutoring experience.
Some thoughts
Reading some of the other posts has fed into my thoughts about the readings this week. Katie's discussion of the school-imposed dichotomy between "good" and "bad" students reminds me strongly of my own high school experience, though at the time it was not something I actively thought about. I was also a "good" student; I was in Honors and AP classes, getting good grades, favored by teachers and so on. Most of my friends were part of the same "class" of students as I was. I knew hardly any of the students in any of the remedial classes our school offered because unless we were in the same gym class, we just didn't run in the same intellectual circles. The rememedial classes were commonly referred to as "stupid math" or "stupid English" instead of "remedial" by almost all the students, whether they were in those classes or not. My senior year was the first time I was not in an honors English class (we only had AP English or British Literature at that level) Suddenly the honors class that I had had for ever other year of English (and many other classes) was gone, and I was sitting in a classroom full of students with many different intellectual designations. Many of them were less involved and less interested in the material than my honors class peers had been. It was the first time that I observed keenly the divide between the smart, motivated students, many of whom came to high school expecting to do exactly as well as they did, and everyone else, many of whom had only the goal of graduating. Thinking about these things made me wonder how I would handle tutoring a student with a background like many of the students in remedial classes I went to high school with. If his or her only goal was just to make it through the paper, just to get a passing grade, how would I cope with the lack of interest in doing well? As the students coming in to the center asking for some kind of verification that they've been there attest, not everyone comes because they genuinely want help. I have led two sessions thus far, and while both students were sent to the center by their teachers, neither of them was the type of student I described.
Another post I connected with was Jenna's. She talked about having difficulty connecting her literacy in music to her development as a writer. I have thought about that same problem for myself. My entire family in deeply involved in music (I am, in fact, the only member who did not or does not intend to major in music) and it has been a part of my life since before I was born. However, at this point I have still not found a way to connect that to my interest or development in writing. Actually, I think that one of the things that most encouraged my young writing was starting school in the fifth grade, but I'm not really sure that tackling grade school as a literacy sounds like a good idea.
Another post I connected with was Jenna's. She talked about having difficulty connecting her literacy in music to her development as a writer. I have thought about that same problem for myself. My entire family in deeply involved in music (I am, in fact, the only member who did not or does not intend to major in music) and it has been a part of my life since before I was born. However, at this point I have still not found a way to connect that to my interest or development in writing. Actually, I think that one of the things that most encouraged my young writing was starting school in the fifth grade, but I'm not really sure that tackling grade school as a literacy sounds like a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)