It’s funny, when my friends found out I was taking a Basic Writing class their first response was “Basic writing? You don’t need a basic writing class.” However, when I described to them the purpose behind the basic writing class it all made sense. I noticed that the term Basic Writing had a negative connotation to my friends that it must also have to the students who actually need to learn basic writing skills.
Mina Shaughnessy set a foundation at City College that still continues today. And as graduate students in this program, we play a role in making sure the instruction that basic writing students receive is beneficial to their academic growth. It is in our classrooms the students will learn the skills that will carry them to their next classes and hopefully make their writing successful. That’s the goal. But I’ve learned Basic Writing isn’t just about writing, it’s also about reading well, pulling out information to draw on and expand on. Sometimes, I think, the focus on writing overshadows the art of reading. I am left wondering if we can teach basic writers to read for meaning instead of reading and looking for content.
In Murray’s Making Meaning Clear I found that one of his revision principles from the check-list that I use most when tutoring is “simplicity is best.” I find that student try so hard to SOUND academic with words that they are not sure how to use. Somehow it is the belief that the longer or more complicated the word, the better chances there are for the word to show up in their writing. When reading, I tell them I don’t understand what they are trying to say. There is a line in the movie Philadelphia, with Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, where Washington’s character says “Explain this to me like I’m a four year old.” This may sound self-deprecating but it isn’t. I find it allows the student to get at the most basic meaning of what they are writing and often their simple explanation is far better than the convoluted sentence they tried to create.
There is something to be said about revision that I did not take into consideration before attending this class. Revision is as necessary as reading well. This course forced me to revise my literacy narrative 2 times. Each time, I saw something different, something not covered or conveyed in the previous draft. I think when one has a tendency to write well, revision becomes an afterthought. It did for me. However, this process left an indelible mark especially after reading the texts we had on revision and how the faculty of University of Pittsburgh made it a significant component in their basic reading and writing course in the 70’s. I’ve told my students I tutor that the real writing happens when you edit (now I should say revise) and I see I must hold on to that thought as well when I write. Revision is a necessary evil and yes, it is time consuming and very detailed oriented but what emerges from it is richer and more focused text than the original. I see it in my own writing and I’m sure basic writing students will notice it in theirs.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Response to Making Meaning Clear: The Logic of Revision by Donald M. Murray (revision article)
“Revision is not just clarifying meaning, it is discovering meaning and clarifying it while it is being discovered. ...Revision is not a matter of correctness, following the directions in a manual. The writer has to go back again and again to reconsider what the writing means and if the writer can accept, document, and communicate that meaning” (33).
I tell the students that I work one-on-one with in the writing center at City College’s Center for Worker Education that the real writing doesn’t begin until it is time to edit and revise. Initially, the student has to have a complete regurgitation of the information that he has read, discussed, and researched without thought to form or order. I believe this process will not only call to mind what the student has remembered but what he has discovered about what he has remembered as well. This is the first draft. I find that when students read the assignment and work towards what instructor is looking for first, they do not realize how much they have understood. Their papers use most of the author’s words than the students because the students don’t trust what they are saying. Another reason for the initial complete writing “dump”, as I like to refer to it, is so when it is read back the student can see ideas or concepts they have picked up in their reading. When discussing text, sometimes a student doesn’t know what he knows until it is written down. The process of writing encourages thinking.
Only when this is done can the revising and the discovering of meaning happen. This is when student’s writing becomes detailed. The revision process is when the student gets to clarify what he sees and what it means in context. They can pick and choose concepts or themes to expand on from their drafts because the draft will have all the substance to pull from. But meaning can change with each revision, as the student recalls and internalizes the information. I believe the student is more invested during revision to make their argument or essay understood.
Revision isn’t just a clarification of the writer’s point of view, it is a sharpened focus and as instructors we act as tour guides on their papers, asking them to show us more or tell us more.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Response to "Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framework" - Steven Fraiberg
“…I call for attention to “code mashing” or the complex blending of multimodal and multilingual texts and literacy practices in our teaching and research” (102).
“Turning to the area of world Englishes…the field as a whole remains predominantly focused on talk. Additionally, most of the work on writing focuses on the product as opposed to process” (110).
The Language and Literacy Program at City College has steeped its students in the theories, methodology and pedagogy of adult learning while introducing us to texts and scholarship voicing a call to action in the field. I’ve read several times that there is a need for more research to be done in the classrooms of basic writers. I may be biased but I think the students in this program are capable of taking on such an arduous task. I think the curriculum has prepared us for it.
Because our classrooms are more diverse than the classrooms of 1977’s University of Pittsburgh, Basic Reading and Writing class found in Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts, our students face different challenges than the students who preceded them. The instructors face more challenges as well and I believe we are at a time in literacy and technological history where research should have been started several years ago. If we continue focus on the product of what is written we’ll never develop comprehensive scholarship on the process. Because the process will be different for each student, I think classroom research does not seem that appealing. Not to mention it is time consuming. However, I think research can be appealing especially if approached from the process perspective. We have various students from two to three language homes who come into the classroom with their histories, cultures and languages to share in the discourse of the curriculum. Studying how students remix and integrate their histories into a 21st century basic writing classroom will prove valuable to the next generation of basic writing professionals. I think the challenge is that no writing process is the same. How can one study the process of student’s writing. What goes on cognitively while composing? And do the same thought processes continue when revising? We spoke a great deal about revising this semester and how important revision is to the writing process. We could glean so much if we were to only concentrate on the process of revision for basic writing students who have more than two languages. In addition, we would more than likely take notice of the differences if we concentrated on the process of revision with students who were monolingual. There is a need to study the process of writing but should we concentrate on the composition in lieu of all else. It’s hard to fathom where to begin.
We are on the brink of a digital literacy wave. Hopefully someone is somewhere documenting all the changes that digital literacy is bringing into the classroom. Where we are today will look very elementary in five years. Our students will be different as well. They will want to use whatever medium is available. Technology is becoming ingrained in some curriculums and I do believe before long, there will be no paper texts, assignments, handouts, etc.
“Turning to the area of world Englishes…the field as a whole remains predominantly focused on talk. Additionally, most of the work on writing focuses on the product as opposed to process” (110).
The Language and Literacy Program at City College has steeped its students in the theories, methodology and pedagogy of adult learning while introducing us to texts and scholarship voicing a call to action in the field. I’ve read several times that there is a need for more research to be done in the classrooms of basic writers. I may be biased but I think the students in this program are capable of taking on such an arduous task. I think the curriculum has prepared us for it.
Because our classrooms are more diverse than the classrooms of 1977’s University of Pittsburgh, Basic Reading and Writing class found in Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts, our students face different challenges than the students who preceded them. The instructors face more challenges as well and I believe we are at a time in literacy and technological history where research should have been started several years ago. If we continue focus on the product of what is written we’ll never develop comprehensive scholarship on the process. Because the process will be different for each student, I think classroom research does not seem that appealing. Not to mention it is time consuming. However, I think research can be appealing especially if approached from the process perspective. We have various students from two to three language homes who come into the classroom with their histories, cultures and languages to share in the discourse of the curriculum. Studying how students remix and integrate their histories into a 21st century basic writing classroom will prove valuable to the next generation of basic writing professionals. I think the challenge is that no writing process is the same. How can one study the process of student’s writing. What goes on cognitively while composing? And do the same thought processes continue when revising? We spoke a great deal about revising this semester and how important revision is to the writing process. We could glean so much if we were to only concentrate on the process of revision for basic writing students who have more than two languages. In addition, we would more than likely take notice of the differences if we concentrated on the process of revision with students who were monolingual. There is a need to study the process of writing but should we concentrate on the composition in lieu of all else. It’s hard to fathom where to begin.
We are on the brink of a digital literacy wave. Hopefully someone is somewhere documenting all the changes that digital literacy is bringing into the classroom. Where we are today will look very elementary in five years. Our students will be different as well. They will want to use whatever medium is available. Technology is becoming ingrained in some curriculums and I do believe before long, there will be no paper texts, assignments, handouts, etc.
Looking Back at the Literary Narrative
Writing a literacy narrative caused me to search my mind for instances when I became aware of my reading and writing process. This exercise forced me to see myself not only as a child but as a learner who was in the midst of a discovery. School is usually a blur for me with small moments of achievement that stand out.
I wrote about my 4th and 12th grade teachers and their influence on my creative writing and academic writing respectively. It was particularly challenging for me to understand and articulate what these women did to help me. In my first draft, I left Mrs. Chakin, my fourth grade teacher out as I thought to only focus on my first academic achievement. However, my professor pointed out to me the encouragement Mrs. Chakin gave me by reading my work out loud to the class. I did not see her reading my work as encouragement. I was not sure how to see it. This exercise allowed me to view Mrs. Chakin in the role of an educator, to see her purpose in allowing me to write alone and then share my work. I had to think and put myself in her position to understand why she would take me under her wing, so to speak. I’m glad she did because what began as my quest to gain attention from my classmates, turned into a lifelong passion for writing stories. My writing has now developed into a public performance of my stories. This is an outcome I could not have foreseen. Nor did I make the connection until I began to write this reflection.
In my original draft my focus was on Mrs. Spilotro because in her class I experienced writing my first academic essay. And because this literacy narrative is an academic exercise, I thought her participation in my development was more important than Mrs. Chakin. However, to have these two women juxtaposed in my narrative, I realized that both were very important in my development as a student and as a writer. There are students who cannot write creatively and struggle with the task of drawing the reader into their world. Conversely, there are students who struggle academically to form their thoughts on an idea or topic and structure them into a linear, cohesive fashion. Because of these two women, I do not have those issues when writing. In this writing process I have learned something about myself. I have developed a strong creative voice and I have a cultivated and continue to work on perfecting my solid academic voice. Sometimes the two forms cross paths, perhaps in the introduction or closing of an essay, but not often.
Writing a literacy narrative is not easy. Initially I believed it was not a difficult task because I knew I could write. However, this called for a specificity I was not used to detailing. I never had to think about what a teacher has done to foster my literacy nor how it affected me. I had to mentally go back into the classroom and see myself as a child, feeling all the emotions and comments that I could remember. Details were foggy and I’m sure some events are not as accurate as I portrayed but what I do remember is how I felt. By recalling how I felt, it allowed me to then relate the feeling to what it meant to me. I believe if we feel something, it means something and for the first time I had to internalize the actions of my teachers and apply it to myself. I had to take a close look at how their actions have affected me in my adult life. One may not think initially there is a connetion, but the exercise proves otherwise.
Reflection is a strong component of this type of writing. It can prove to be challenging for someone like myself who has not thought about elementary school or high school in over 25 years. Bringing those memories to the forefront took me some time because my memory is not as clear as it would have been if I was half my age. I doubt if younger students would have had this difficulty. But for me remembering the details of what took place was not an easy task. Reflection brings understanding and as a future educator I was able to understand Mrs. Chakin’s and Mrs. Spilotro’s role in my learning. Their actions may have seemed inconsequentially to me as a child and young adult but as a graduate student, I now realized how important they were to my development as a reader and writer.
This exercise is not only important for graduate students but writing a reflective narrative literacy essay can be important to any college student. It is a shared experience that we all had no matter our socio-economic background or country and city of origin. There will be commonalities that students can expound on during class discussions. Sharing and asking information about their narratives can clarify the process. There is a bond made between students when likeness or differences are shared. And because this exercise is about how we learned it is not intimidating to share this information in a classroom setting. We have all had someone who has encouraged or discouraged us in gaining literacy and this would be a great first exercise in a basic writing class to explore.
Writing a literacy narrative has caused me to look back on the positives of my education. Instead of focusing on classmates, I was forced to really investigate my learning experiences, to see what I took for granted. In doing so, I found my love of creative writing was nurtured by the active participation of a teacher who made sure to read my stories out loud. Had I not written this literacy narrative, I would not have made that connection.
Mrs. Spilotro’s instructions to “use 12th grade English” was the catalyst that propelled me to write an academic essay she felt worthy enough to read in class. My essay represented me in a way my name, cultural background and outside interests did not. The confidence it gave me still resonates today. I always want to do a good job on any paper I hand it. Her quiet acknowledgement made it possible for me to see myself as someone who could produce thoughtful and insightful work. Therefore, I am not just a creative writer who writes academically but a writer who can easily navigate between academic and creative writing.
I wrote about my 4th and 12th grade teachers and their influence on my creative writing and academic writing respectively. It was particularly challenging for me to understand and articulate what these women did to help me. In my first draft, I left Mrs. Chakin, my fourth grade teacher out as I thought to only focus on my first academic achievement. However, my professor pointed out to me the encouragement Mrs. Chakin gave me by reading my work out loud to the class. I did not see her reading my work as encouragement. I was not sure how to see it. This exercise allowed me to view Mrs. Chakin in the role of an educator, to see her purpose in allowing me to write alone and then share my work. I had to think and put myself in her position to understand why she would take me under her wing, so to speak. I’m glad she did because what began as my quest to gain attention from my classmates, turned into a lifelong passion for writing stories. My writing has now developed into a public performance of my stories. This is an outcome I could not have foreseen. Nor did I make the connection until I began to write this reflection.
In my original draft my focus was on Mrs. Spilotro because in her class I experienced writing my first academic essay. And because this literacy narrative is an academic exercise, I thought her participation in my development was more important than Mrs. Chakin. However, to have these two women juxtaposed in my narrative, I realized that both were very important in my development as a student and as a writer. There are students who cannot write creatively and struggle with the task of drawing the reader into their world. Conversely, there are students who struggle academically to form their thoughts on an idea or topic and structure them into a linear, cohesive fashion. Because of these two women, I do not have those issues when writing. In this writing process I have learned something about myself. I have developed a strong creative voice and I have a cultivated and continue to work on perfecting my solid academic voice. Sometimes the two forms cross paths, perhaps in the introduction or closing of an essay, but not often.
Writing a literacy narrative is not easy. Initially I believed it was not a difficult task because I knew I could write. However, this called for a specificity I was not used to detailing. I never had to think about what a teacher has done to foster my literacy nor how it affected me. I had to mentally go back into the classroom and see myself as a child, feeling all the emotions and comments that I could remember. Details were foggy and I’m sure some events are not as accurate as I portrayed but what I do remember is how I felt. By recalling how I felt, it allowed me to then relate the feeling to what it meant to me. I believe if we feel something, it means something and for the first time I had to internalize the actions of my teachers and apply it to myself. I had to take a close look at how their actions have affected me in my adult life. One may not think initially there is a connetion, but the exercise proves otherwise.
Reflection is a strong component of this type of writing. It can prove to be challenging for someone like myself who has not thought about elementary school or high school in over 25 years. Bringing those memories to the forefront took me some time because my memory is not as clear as it would have been if I was half my age. I doubt if younger students would have had this difficulty. But for me remembering the details of what took place was not an easy task. Reflection brings understanding and as a future educator I was able to understand Mrs. Chakin’s and Mrs. Spilotro’s role in my learning. Their actions may have seemed inconsequentially to me as a child and young adult but as a graduate student, I now realized how important they were to my development as a reader and writer.
This exercise is not only important for graduate students but writing a reflective narrative literacy essay can be important to any college student. It is a shared experience that we all had no matter our socio-economic background or country and city of origin. There will be commonalities that students can expound on during class discussions. Sharing and asking information about their narratives can clarify the process. There is a bond made between students when likeness or differences are shared. And because this exercise is about how we learned it is not intimidating to share this information in a classroom setting. We have all had someone who has encouraged or discouraged us in gaining literacy and this would be a great first exercise in a basic writing class to explore.
Writing a literacy narrative has caused me to look back on the positives of my education. Instead of focusing on classmates, I was forced to really investigate my learning experiences, to see what I took for granted. In doing so, I found my love of creative writing was nurtured by the active participation of a teacher who made sure to read my stories out loud. Had I not written this literacy narrative, I would not have made that connection.
Mrs. Spilotro’s instructions to “use 12th grade English” was the catalyst that propelled me to write an academic essay she felt worthy enough to read in class. My essay represented me in a way my name, cultural background and outside interests did not. The confidence it gave me still resonates today. I always want to do a good job on any paper I hand it. Her quiet acknowledgement made it possible for me to see myself as someone who could produce thoughtful and insightful work. Therefore, I am not just a creative writer who writes academically but a writer who can easily navigate between academic and creative writing.
Exploring My Writing Journey (Final Literacy Narrative)
Mrs. Chakin, my 4th grade teacher, tall and stoic like Lincoln, was known as the bread lady. Every year she taught her students how to make bread from scratch. It was the only time we were able to go into the lunchroom kitchen. The fourth graders from other classes thought we were lucky. Although that may have been a highlight for most, I remember Mrs. Chakin because she helped me to channel my love of reading into an outlet for writing. It was in her class I began to write creative stories using the names of my classmates. There were two reasons I used my classmates names. First, their names were familiar to me so I choose the person who was nice to me on any particular day. The other reason was to simply fit in with the girls.
Mrs. Chakin helped foster my writing by reading my work to the class. She would either read my paper out loud first, if she was reading multiple students work, or she would read it last. Sometimes my paper was the only one read. It often felt like a spotlight. Sometimes I liked it and sometimes I didn’t. But I didn’t stop writing my stories and Mrs. Chakin didn’t stop reading them. During recess, I’d sometimes stay in the classroom with her because I was working on another idea and did not want to forget it. I think she also knew I didn’t like the other girls so much. I was an introvert and it seemed everyone else wasn’t. Mrs. Chakin thought nothing of letting me come back up to the classroom after I had my lunch. The classroom was peaceful. The school yard was in the back of the building and Mrs. Chakin’s classroom was in the front of it. I could not hear the screams and giggles in the school yard so the classroom almost felt like I was in my own library. Mrs. Chakin let me be. I did not ask any questions because while I was writing she was having lunch and looking at the newspaper. I did not want to disturb her and she obviousl did not want to disturb me. My mother recently showed me a copy of my 4th grade report care where Mrs. Chakin wrote “Nayanda has a wonderful narrative voice. She should write more.” I had forgotten about that comment and what she did to help with my creative process is in those few words.
Writing gave me the voice and the confidence I did not have in class. My stories were funny and imaginative for a 4th grader and the laughs from my classmates felt better than the spotlight. From that age on I kept a notebook, diary, journal or even a yellow legal pad with me so I could jot down whatever idea or sentence I thought would make it in a good story or poem. I forgot how to bake bread but I have never forgotten how to write a story.
Now that I am in graduate school I find it difficult to write creatively while simultaneously writing academically. The creative writing is pushed to the back burner. There is a different thought process for me when I have to write a paper. Where creative writing allows freedom, academic writing is rigid with its parameters. There are rules one must follow for the academic writing to be considered acceptable. I’d be hard pressed to find hard and fast rules for creative writing. For me, the first thing I must do in order to succeed in writing academically is to understand the assignment. Once I know the assignment, I work to figure out the rest.
The first academic essay I remember writing came from my 12th grade honors English teacher, Mrs. Spilotro, who taught right across the hall from the 12th grade history class her husband taught. She read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to us in class as we read along. Our classroom was huge with windows along one side of the room and the coat closets opposite the windows. The desks were situated where either the window was to your back or the closets were to your back. The students would sit facing each other with a large open area in the center of the classroom for activities e.g, spelling bees, readings and even reciting Lady MacBeth’s famous soliloquy.
Mrs. Spilotro had two chairs. There was one behind her desk where she sat while we took a test or read to ourselves. The other was a bar chair, not a stool, she used when she was reading to us. It lifted her high above her students so she seemed to look down on us. The bar chair sat in front of her desk which was right in the middle of the two rows of student’s desk on either side of the room. In my memory Mrs. Spilotro wore a perfect white cotton blouse under a black dress that went to her knees. She often reminded me of a penguin with glasses, perched on the tip of her nose, sitting resolutely and reading to us.
She was not the type to chit-chat with students before or after class. Whatever instructions we received we were told in class and we were responsible for writing them down. I did not need to write down the instructions for The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. They were simple. After the book was completed we were to write a paper “using 12th grade English” to support or oppose our view of why this book should or should not be taught in schools. As a creative writer I knew the difference; I knew the language she wanted and started to form my ideas.
I supported the position that the book should be taught in schools. In our class discussions Mrs. Spilotro told us how people used to ban and burn books for many reasons but they all seemed to point to fear to me. The language in Twain’s novel was the point of contention. I remember writing how his use of the word “nigger” was not meant to be derogatory but it was indicative of that period of time. To take the word out would leave the story hollow and unauthentic. Young white boys called grown, slave men “nigger” as if it were their name because that’s what their fathers and the others did. Mrs. Spilotro told us that Twain was accused of being a racist and I argued what else could he be growing up in the era that he did. I did not know if it was true but I knew he was a writer who was true to his craft in setting this story and maintaining the language that was an important part of the fabric of American history.
When she handed all the graded papers back to the students, I did not receive a mine. I thought to myself, here we go again. What’s wrong this time? Mrs. Spilotro seemed to have a problem with my handwriting. I liked flourishes in my letters and did not keep to the handy penmanship border guide that lined the classroom walls. I thought this was one of those moments. As it turned out, nothing was wrong. She told the class, “This is what I expected in your papers” and proceeded to read my essay as I sat with my mouth agape. The usual “A” students, as well as a few others, were looking around to see who didn’t receive their paper. No one anticipated it would be mine.
I sat in the first seat that started the row with my back to the windows. I heard the collective gasp of my classmates as she handed the paper back to me. She went on to point out how I made use of the words “derogatory” and “consistently” and provided examples from the text and the time period to support my argument of why The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should be taught in schools. That was the first time Mrs. Spilotro gave me the slightest of smiles which I read as saying, “Well done.” It had a profound effect on me because I finally felt that she was proud of my work. No longer was she concerned with how I made my lower-case “k’s.” Now she was more focused on what I was writing rather than how I was writing it.
It was the first time I realized I could write academically as well as produce little stories to amuse my friends. I learned that I had many voices including a narrative one, an authoritative one and an introspective one when I felt strongly about a subject. This introspection is what I used to form my essay. Although I initially wanted to say that the book should be banned, I had to think about what that meant to me as an avid reader. Was I really advocating for a book to be banned that was littered with a word that hurt my mother’s feelings? She was a child of the south, not quite used to the fast pace of New York, but glad to escape a place where her and her sibling’s names were never used outside of their home. This point, I realized, was not a valid enough argument to sustain throughout my paper. In the end, I learned the differences between making up characters and their situations and discussing and probing the characters and plots made up by the authors. In doing so, I was able to develop some ideas that were my own despite what I felt internally.
My teacher did not recognize my linguistic competence until she read my paper. I never gave her an opportunity to hear me verbally nor was anything I submitted previously as good. Prior assignments were given in and handed back but I do not recall any comments that were made, nothing that moved me quite like this. I do not believe she knew me to be a reader. I doubt she read my contributions in the school magazine. It was rare that I raised my hand to answer a question, unless I was positive of the answer. She did not recognize my linguistic competence because I hid it from her. I probably hid it from myself too, unaware that it was in my possession. However, after turning in this essay, I could not hide it any more. This is when I first discovered that academic writing offered a different kind of praise than creative writing. Creative writing is all about the story, how it’s shaped and told. I think academic writing is more challenging and more difficult. It requires analysis, critical thinking and reflection. It requires a different thought process.
When I look back on this assignment now, I see how it changed the way I read as well. Writing the paper caused me to interpret the book differently. It wasn’t just about a young boy’s journey down the Mississippi. Therefore, I had to discover what else this story was about. It caused me to take on the author’s perspective and as a budding writer I put myself in Twain’s place. What does the author want me to know by telling me this story? Who was the intended audience? Why tell this story? All of these questions came into play when I was writing this assignment for Mrs. Spilotro. All of these questions or some variation of them come into play when I read now. I honestly wanted her to be impressed with what I said and how I said it. I no longer wanted the glance over from her but the slight smile she gave when she was pleased.
I wish I could find that paper today. I think of it often when I’m asked about a memorable writing experience. It’s the only essay I regret losing.
Mrs. Chakin helped foster my writing by reading my work to the class. She would either read my paper out loud first, if she was reading multiple students work, or she would read it last. Sometimes my paper was the only one read. It often felt like a spotlight. Sometimes I liked it and sometimes I didn’t. But I didn’t stop writing my stories and Mrs. Chakin didn’t stop reading them. During recess, I’d sometimes stay in the classroom with her because I was working on another idea and did not want to forget it. I think she also knew I didn’t like the other girls so much. I was an introvert and it seemed everyone else wasn’t. Mrs. Chakin thought nothing of letting me come back up to the classroom after I had my lunch. The classroom was peaceful. The school yard was in the back of the building and Mrs. Chakin’s classroom was in the front of it. I could not hear the screams and giggles in the school yard so the classroom almost felt like I was in my own library. Mrs. Chakin let me be. I did not ask any questions because while I was writing she was having lunch and looking at the newspaper. I did not want to disturb her and she obviousl did not want to disturb me. My mother recently showed me a copy of my 4th grade report care where Mrs. Chakin wrote “Nayanda has a wonderful narrative voice. She should write more.” I had forgotten about that comment and what she did to help with my creative process is in those few words.
Writing gave me the voice and the confidence I did not have in class. My stories were funny and imaginative for a 4th grader and the laughs from my classmates felt better than the spotlight. From that age on I kept a notebook, diary, journal or even a yellow legal pad with me so I could jot down whatever idea or sentence I thought would make it in a good story or poem. I forgot how to bake bread but I have never forgotten how to write a story.
Now that I am in graduate school I find it difficult to write creatively while simultaneously writing academically. The creative writing is pushed to the back burner. There is a different thought process for me when I have to write a paper. Where creative writing allows freedom, academic writing is rigid with its parameters. There are rules one must follow for the academic writing to be considered acceptable. I’d be hard pressed to find hard and fast rules for creative writing. For me, the first thing I must do in order to succeed in writing academically is to understand the assignment. Once I know the assignment, I work to figure out the rest.
The first academic essay I remember writing came from my 12th grade honors English teacher, Mrs. Spilotro, who taught right across the hall from the 12th grade history class her husband taught. She read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to us in class as we read along. Our classroom was huge with windows along one side of the room and the coat closets opposite the windows. The desks were situated where either the window was to your back or the closets were to your back. The students would sit facing each other with a large open area in the center of the classroom for activities e.g, spelling bees, readings and even reciting Lady MacBeth’s famous soliloquy.
Mrs. Spilotro had two chairs. There was one behind her desk where she sat while we took a test or read to ourselves. The other was a bar chair, not a stool, she used when she was reading to us. It lifted her high above her students so she seemed to look down on us. The bar chair sat in front of her desk which was right in the middle of the two rows of student’s desk on either side of the room. In my memory Mrs. Spilotro wore a perfect white cotton blouse under a black dress that went to her knees. She often reminded me of a penguin with glasses, perched on the tip of her nose, sitting resolutely and reading to us.
She was not the type to chit-chat with students before or after class. Whatever instructions we received we were told in class and we were responsible for writing them down. I did not need to write down the instructions for The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. They were simple. After the book was completed we were to write a paper “using 12th grade English” to support or oppose our view of why this book should or should not be taught in schools. As a creative writer I knew the difference; I knew the language she wanted and started to form my ideas.
I supported the position that the book should be taught in schools. In our class discussions Mrs. Spilotro told us how people used to ban and burn books for many reasons but they all seemed to point to fear to me. The language in Twain’s novel was the point of contention. I remember writing how his use of the word “nigger” was not meant to be derogatory but it was indicative of that period of time. To take the word out would leave the story hollow and unauthentic. Young white boys called grown, slave men “nigger” as if it were their name because that’s what their fathers and the others did. Mrs. Spilotro told us that Twain was accused of being a racist and I argued what else could he be growing up in the era that he did. I did not know if it was true but I knew he was a writer who was true to his craft in setting this story and maintaining the language that was an important part of the fabric of American history.
When she handed all the graded papers back to the students, I did not receive a mine. I thought to myself, here we go again. What’s wrong this time? Mrs. Spilotro seemed to have a problem with my handwriting. I liked flourishes in my letters and did not keep to the handy penmanship border guide that lined the classroom walls. I thought this was one of those moments. As it turned out, nothing was wrong. She told the class, “This is what I expected in your papers” and proceeded to read my essay as I sat with my mouth agape. The usual “A” students, as well as a few others, were looking around to see who didn’t receive their paper. No one anticipated it would be mine.
I sat in the first seat that started the row with my back to the windows. I heard the collective gasp of my classmates as she handed the paper back to me. She went on to point out how I made use of the words “derogatory” and “consistently” and provided examples from the text and the time period to support my argument of why The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should be taught in schools. That was the first time Mrs. Spilotro gave me the slightest of smiles which I read as saying, “Well done.” It had a profound effect on me because I finally felt that she was proud of my work. No longer was she concerned with how I made my lower-case “k’s.” Now she was more focused on what I was writing rather than how I was writing it.
It was the first time I realized I could write academically as well as produce little stories to amuse my friends. I learned that I had many voices including a narrative one, an authoritative one and an introspective one when I felt strongly about a subject. This introspection is what I used to form my essay. Although I initially wanted to say that the book should be banned, I had to think about what that meant to me as an avid reader. Was I really advocating for a book to be banned that was littered with a word that hurt my mother’s feelings? She was a child of the south, not quite used to the fast pace of New York, but glad to escape a place where her and her sibling’s names were never used outside of their home. This point, I realized, was not a valid enough argument to sustain throughout my paper. In the end, I learned the differences between making up characters and their situations and discussing and probing the characters and plots made up by the authors. In doing so, I was able to develop some ideas that were my own despite what I felt internally.
My teacher did not recognize my linguistic competence until she read my paper. I never gave her an opportunity to hear me verbally nor was anything I submitted previously as good. Prior assignments were given in and handed back but I do not recall any comments that were made, nothing that moved me quite like this. I do not believe she knew me to be a reader. I doubt she read my contributions in the school magazine. It was rare that I raised my hand to answer a question, unless I was positive of the answer. She did not recognize my linguistic competence because I hid it from her. I probably hid it from myself too, unaware that it was in my possession. However, after turning in this essay, I could not hide it any more. This is when I first discovered that academic writing offered a different kind of praise than creative writing. Creative writing is all about the story, how it’s shaped and told. I think academic writing is more challenging and more difficult. It requires analysis, critical thinking and reflection. It requires a different thought process.
When I look back on this assignment now, I see how it changed the way I read as well. Writing the paper caused me to interpret the book differently. It wasn’t just about a young boy’s journey down the Mississippi. Therefore, I had to discover what else this story was about. It caused me to take on the author’s perspective and as a budding writer I put myself in Twain’s place. What does the author want me to know by telling me this story? Who was the intended audience? Why tell this story? All of these questions came into play when I was writing this assignment for Mrs. Spilotro. All of these questions or some variation of them come into play when I read now. I honestly wanted her to be impressed with what I said and how I said it. I no longer wanted the glance over from her but the slight smile she gave when she was pleased.
I wish I could find that paper today. I think of it often when I’m asked about a memorable writing experience. It’s the only essay I regret losing.
Facts, Artifacts, Counterfacts - Review
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the basic reading and writing program at University of Pittsburgh and examines the flaws and factors of David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky’s Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts. Written over thirty years ago does it still stand as a valid go-to text for instructors of basic writers? The paper also discusses if the course can be adjusted for the 21st century classroom by examining a similar curriculum at City College of New York.
Has the Basic Writing Course Changed?
Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts by David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky presents and discusses the basic reading and writing program created by the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh in 1977. With the full support of the university, the authors and their colleagues set out to design a program that would teach young adults who were considered students “outside the mainstream [or] students who were underprepared for the textual demands of a college education” (4) not only how to write but, just as important, how to read. Their idea was to design a course, conducted like a graduate seminar that would allow the students to develop and share their own thoughts and ideas on the theme or subject for the semester. The young adults were given the topic “Growth and Change in Adolescence” (48) and the continuing adult students were given the subject of “Working” (169.) However, the latter subject and course is not addressed in detail in this book.
This six hour class took place over three non-consecutive days with fifteen students and two teachers in a fifteen week semester. After completion of the course, the students receive six credits for their efforts. There are given 24-26 writing assignments including the diagnostics test taken at the beginning of the term. One to two writing assignments are given per week. Oddly, page 49 says ten books are assigned per semester and page 89 states the number as eleven. What is clear is that four of those books are chosen by the student. The books can be of any genre except magazines, textbooks, how-to books and books from other courses. Students are given one hour a week of in-class reading for the books they have chosen but they are also encourage to read their choices outside of the classroom as well. This practice motivates the basic writer to “develop their reading skills with books they have a particular and personal interest in” (89). It is the authors’ assumption that their basic writers are not familiar with reading books for pleasure (90). Having students choose and read books for their personal enjoyment juxtaposed to having them read books for an assignment serves two purposes. First, it encourages students not to see reading as just a skill but to see it as a quiet escape that uninterrupted in-class reading can provide. Second, because class readings are discussed and guided, the skills and strategies students have learned to apply to the assigned readings can be applied to their personal readings. This can enhance their reading experience, taking it to a level they may not have experienced, making their contact with books and texts more meaningful.
Students are given nine days to read an assigned book and two days to write a paper. Journal entries are inclusive in the writing assignments and are designed to initially have students write about the experience of reading the book. As the semester progresses so does teacher expectation. The writing assignments increase in difficulty as the students are asked to re-think and re-see the text. These assignments culminate in an autobiography the students must have typed. This manuscript of student autobiographies is then treated as a text for examination and study for the remainder of the semester.
The introduction of the book states the clear purpose of the authors. They have created a course that does not separate the task of reading and writing. It was their attempt to design a course that is less about the retrieval and regurgitation of information and more about understanding what has been read and how to respond to that reading. “Ours is not a course in study skills…Our students write drafts and revisions, not exercises; they work on semester long projects, not the usual set pieces defined by discrete weekly themes” (4). This course sets out to differentiate itself as something more than just a read and response writing course. The students are actively engage in their texts, looking, revising and re-thinking their work for the duration of the semester. The students are frequently asked in their assignments to go back and re-read what they have written and offer additional commentary or insights based on additional readings and class discussions.
What is impressive about this course is the amount of thought and forethought that went into its creation. This curriculum was designed only seven years after the City College of New York began its open admissions policy so the field of basic writing was still young, but growing steadily. University of Pittsburgh’s dean, Bob Marshall’s hands on participation in the course is evidence of his strong commitment to have in place a curriculum that would help “marginalized students” (4) participate in academic discourse. The scaffolding of writing assignments, pre-discussion of texts, journaling, in-class reading and analyzing provides a rich foundation for a successful basic reading and writing course.
It bears repeating that this curriculum was taught in 1977, a time when technology was in its infancy too. Therefore one must keep in mind while reading this book that all assignments were handwritten, except in the case of the autobiography where a typist had to be secured in advance to type the student’s manuscript for publication. With technology more realized today than it was in the 70’s several questions come to mind. Can this combination reading and writing curriculum be adapted in the 21st century college? What are the flaws? What factors make this course successful and can they be duplicated today?
In 2007 the Freshman Inquiry Writing Seminar (FIQWS) was established at City College of New York (CCNY) and it bears many similarities and a few differences to the course created at the University of Pittsburgh. Both universities offer two teachers to facilitate learning however, the composition component of CCNY’s program is taught by graduate students who are often inexperienced (Gleason). The University of Pittsburgh program was taught by two full time faculty members who worked in collaboration to create the course.
The curriculum can be adapted but the class size and the student teacher ratio may be problematic in some of today’s schools. However, CCNY keeps its FIQWS class between 16-18 students and this is slightly above par with the student to teacher ratio at the University of Pittsburgh. The time commitment expected of the student is similar as well with CCNY spending an hour less time per week with students than its predecessor. The one hour in-class reading is not part of the FIQWS course.
It can be argue that University of Pittsburgh’s basic reading and writing course has been adapted to a 21st century classroom, with a few adjustments, as is evident in CCNY’s FIQWS program. Therefore, Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts can be a good foundational text for teachers in the beginning of their careers but it also can serve as a resource for teachers who are currently in-service.
Of the flaws I found in this book, one is that it does not give a fuller description of the student population. Students are introduced to the reader as minority, underprepared, marginalized (4). What does that tell us? It would have provided a more concrete picture if ages, backgrounds, and gender were disclosed as well. It, perhaps, would have given the reader a better understanding of who this program was designed for but the vague descriptions reveal nothing useful. A second flaw is that we are not told what makes the University of Pittsburgh students basic writers. How were basic writers determined in 1977? We cannot assume they are basic writers because they are marginalized, underprepared and minority students. Were they tested with a grammar skills test or did they supply a writing sample? This is unknown. Last, with adult education growing today, more information regarding their returning adult population would have been helpful. Taking notice and documenting if there were any differences in teaching these two populations would address the concerns of how and what motivates both sets of adults to learn. If the authors were to revise this for the 21st century audience these factors as well as the use of technology would have to be addressed, explored and discussed.
A key factor in this course is the singular focus on one topic which allows the student to become knowledgeable in a subject. Because the course is treated as a graduate seminar, it connects all students to each other and to one common goal. For this course that goal is the publication of the autobiography. The students have been preparing to write this autobiography since the first writing assignment. Having their work used alongside published writers is a powerful incentive and motivator. This is evident in the description of the sense of pride the students have when the students are presented with the finished manuscript (Bartholomae, 98).
Pre-discussion of the books gives momentum to learning. Students become interactive with the subject, the texts and their classmates. The faculty’s task is to help students “to plan, carry out, and evaluate their own learning” (Merriam 107) making self-directed learning an important component and motivator in this course. The faculty guides the student, gently prodding and asking so the student can discover more on his own. In focusing on one subject the student becomes “expert” not in the subject per se but in his/her own learning.
CCNY’s FIQWS program also focuses on one subject but the students have over two dozen subjects from which to choose. They range from “Slang, Metaphor and Standard English” to “Introduction to Brazilian Film and Literature.” The topics are so varied and diverse it would not be difficult for a student to find something that he or she would like to become knowledgeable in.
Another factor that makes this course successful is the focus on revising. The amount of revising may seem daunting but it is necessary to produce the quality of work that is expected. The instructors do not focus on sentence level revisions until the ninth or tenth assignment because they are convinced that students do not care about sentence structure until they care about what they are saying (97). Instead of the automatic tendency to correct sentence level errors, the teachers provided guided questions that forced the students to see their own mistakes. What is expected is for the student to evaluate what he has written, re-think, evaluate and revise according to class discussions, new insights and other readings. The revision emerges as a more cohesive and thoughtful piece of writing showing depth of thought and understanding of the topic. This is also the goal of the course.
Does time permit today’s instructors the opportunity to address a student’s sentence level errors or ask questions for further guidance? Perhaps, but where these issues can be address is in the writing centers of colleges and universities. One-on-one consultation in a writing center can address errors and revisions and give the student the much needed time to discuss his or her process. Ideally, this should be done with the teacher but it can be done successfully with a trained writing consultant. In fact, on page 191 is a sample of a paper with revision notes and it inspired me to see students paper differently. I have now begun to question the students on their mistakes instead of automatically correcting them. Having the students explain their errors allows me to understand their comprehension and then I address it. Explanation also allows the student to see their understanding of their writing process and how it should be adjusted to coincide with academic norms. There is no empowerment when a student walks away with a corrected paper and no ownership of why the corrections were made. Discussion leads to understanding and understanding, for the student, leads to seeing and thinking about their paper and differently. It empowers them, as it did with this student, to making better choices when writing.
I would recommend Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts primarily to teachers just beginning in the field of basic writing. Next, I would also recommend it to those working in the writing centers across college campuses. In truth, any educator could find valuable information in this book. Despite the flaws, Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts solidify the reason to concentrate on one subject area for basic readers and writers and the need for consistent, guided revision of their assignments. These factors encourage students to become active participants in their learning. Although this book was written over 30 years ago, it is still valid in how it approaches basic writers and readers.
Works Cited
Bartholomae, David, and Anthony Petrosky. Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course. Portsmouth: Boyton/Cook, 1986. Print.
"General Education Requirements." Step 2: Special Courses. City College of New York, n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.
Gleason, Barbara. “Remedail Writing at CCNY (2).” In-class PowerPoint presentation. February 14, 2013.
Merriam, Sharan B., and Rosemary S. Caffarella. Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999. Print.
"A Word with Robbie Ramos." Telephone interview. 4 May 2013.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)