Researching Headaches and Quick Fix Mistakes

Why the “Research Paper” Isn’t Working

By Barbara Fister

I enjoyed the article by Fister. Fister begins by discussing her return from the 4Cs and makes the statement that composition teachers and librarians are trying to instill skills students will need after college, however she questions if we are simply trying to “get them through college”. She also references the severity of correct citations, asking:  “Is the whole point to get students to confess what they don't know?” (Fister) This part particularly got me thinking about other articles we read this semester regarding students catering to the teacher. How when the teacher asks questions, it’s for the student to answer accordingly based off of the teacher’s preconceived idea of what the answer should be.

She also discusses how the research paper is supposed to original and creative, yet students need research and other people to back up their ideas as evidence. As a middle school teacher, we require our students to write a Thesis Research paper as a culmination of their middle school experience. I also find that I struggle with pulling out the creativity in student’s writing. They are so concerned about plagiarizing, that they cite everything. I also find that they take the lazy approach and use the evidence as their ideas. They almost forget that they need ideas of their own and the evidence only supports that. Fister also states, “The other and, sadly, more frequent reference desk winch-making moment involves a student needing help finding sources for a paper he’s already written” (Fister). This is another problem I encounter with my students. They do not see the value in using evidence to form their opinions, they only view it as a criteria to include in their paper. I also agree with her sentiment that clearly what we have been doing has not been working. It’s time for a change to figure out what that change should be. Can we get our students these skills in a more meaningful way?

The Popularity of Formulaic Writing (And Why We Need to Resist)

By: Mark Wiley

Wily begins by stating that he discuss, with high school teachers, what colleges expect of writers and states, “While I enjoy these conversations, I am disturbed that too many teachers are looking for quick fixes for students' writing problems.” I find this to be ironic since he then launches into an explanation of the Jane Schaffer approach to writing, which is formulaic and appears to be a “quick fix” if I’ve ever seen one. Shaffer’s approach also appears to be one in which the students are dependent on the evidence. Even though she discusses commenting on the evidence, it sounds as if the students are just required to explain it, rather than be creative. While I disagree with the formulaic approach presented here, I understand that it is not the ONLY strategy and that there are others to be explored. I also agree that as a teacher, it is enticing to have a set of materials at the ready to use to teach writing.

I also agree that structure is important. I cannot remember writing classes I took in undergrad, so I cannot draw on my experience writing papers there. However, I can relate to how I teach in the middle school. As much as I rebelled against Shaffer’s approach, I do believe that students, in the early grades, need to learn structure in order to gain the liberty to deviate from it. We use a formula called RACE in order to structure each body paragraph. The students must restate their idea in support of their claim, “answer” a.k.a. Explain your ideas, cite evidence to support your ideas, and elaborate on how your evidence proves your idea. I find that this structure allows students the opportunity to express their ideas and then use evidence. However, I still find that students focus too much and just supplying evidence to have it for their grade rather than using it correctly.  This ties into Fister’s ideas about finding other methods to incorporate structure into our writing classrooms.

Memo

Here is the link to my blog! 

#whyiwrite

Here is the link to my memo!

Memo-Peer Review

Bi, Butch, and Bar Dyke: Pedagogical Performances of Class, Gender, and Sexuality

By: Gibson, Marinara, and Meem

After reading the first section of the article titled Bi: Playing with fixed identities, I had mixed emotions. I enjoyed her anecdotes, especially the Tinker Bell reference. I was suprised her composition class was unwilling to read Rich’s “When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-vision.” However, maybe I was distracted reading this section, but I kept waiting for this discussion, albeit an important one, to turn towards writing. I may have missed the part where she discusses voice and finding yourself in your writing, but I felt like this section was a bit wordy, a bit opinionated, and a bit overwhelming. I tried to understand her points, but I kept getting lost in my own question of “Where is this going?”.

I enjoyed the second section more. I found the author’s anecdote about her male colleague who called her “bossy” very interesting. I originally read it as an annoyed colleague and less as a sexuality issue. I did not view him as challenging her the only way he knew how; however, I see that now. The author discusses the difference between butch and femme identities, stating that butch is considered higher class than femme. This section left me wondering though. She discusses that because of her open “butchness” that she receives a certain attention, such as students coming out to her or asking for advice, colleagues wanting to engage in debates about gender and sexuality, and being asked to participate on different panels. I couldn’t decide how she felt about this. As I read it, I felt like she was offended that her butchness brought this out in the people in her life. However, at the same time, she declares that she is going to continue to “own” who she is.

I also enjoyed the following section titled Bar Dyke. I felt that this section was the easiest to understand. After reading excerpts from the author’s dossier, I was shocked and horrified at the University’s response. I was upset to read that the university wanted her to conform more to identifying with the scholars and her colleagues, more so than her students. I also found it interesting that Dr. Gatekeeper told her that basically it didn’t matter if she changed it or not, she was still highly perceived. Why bother addressing it at all then, especially when it was pure academic discomfort on their part rather than something she did wrong? I think this speaks to the power struggle we discussed in earlier classes and how that goes hand in hand with people's comfort levels.

Looking Back as We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing Assessment

By Kathleen Blake Yancey

This article opens up by addressing an overview of the three waves of writing assessment: Objective tests, holistically scored essays, and portfolio assessments, where we reside today. The history of the first wave of assessment came from aligning our assessments with the standards, as a way to place and move students to different courses. However, most of these objective tests did not include writing samples, posing a unique concern about where to place these students and whose responsibility was it. The second wave addressed the concerns of validity and reliability, which I found very interesting. It’s true that we need to find trustworthy ways to assess writing, in correlation to being consistent. The third wave of writing assessment addressed the needs for portfolio writing. The question of how to grade these portfolios came up. According to the text, “community standards are developed, and through these standards that fairer grades can be derived. Moreover, they claim, this process enables us to refine responding skills that can be taken back to the classroom. This model of assessment, then, functions three ways: (1) as a sorting mechanism (pass-fail); (2) as a check on practice; (3) as a means of faculty development” (493). This part of the text stood out to me as a teacher because I am constantly wondering if I am assessing my students correctly. I can grade them based off of if they are practicing what I teach, but how do you assess other areas. I am constantly voicing my opinion for a communal standard that we can relate back to. I graded my districts honors entrance essays, and went to the meeting with the assumption that I would be instructed on what makes for a high scoring paper and what doesn’t. Instead, I was thrown a rubric and told to Go. I would love to see more of collaboration in deciding on writing assessment standards.