What I'm Discovering

“Sternglass carefully analyzes various comments that teachers wrote on the papers of the students in her study and finds that the more pedagogically-oriented the comment, the more likely the student was to improve his or her writing” (23).


I’m sensing a theme emerging from what I’m reading in my basic writing class. In “Braiding…” Gunter says we should incorporate student’s language into their writing. In “Facts…” I was inspired by the teacher’s careful attention to discuss errors rather than fix them for the student as well as the various other texts we had on revision. The way we answer our student’s paper will force them to make changes that causes them to think. How we want them to make those changes can start in how we answer their work. “Facts” talked about an automated response to revision, going through lists of known rules to apply to the paper the teacher is reading. The basic instinct is to fix what is broken.
However, in this class I’ve discovered that this isn’t always the best way to teach a student. I’ve used what I’ve learned at the writing center this semester. Instead of automatically fixing the sentence or a grammar issue I asked the student why they made that particular choice in their writing. This opens up a dialogue that is directly geared to how the student looks at their language choices. It is when I understand how they see it, I can explain how a comma, semi-colon, or quotes are used. “Sternglass concludes that teacher comments are important in the development of students’ writing skills…”(23). And as a writing consultant I can see why. There’s an ownership of knowledge and of learning the student takes on when responding to the questions on a returned paper. Some students come into the center traumatized by a professor’s comments unsure of how to move on. I find that talking about errors with student is more effective in fostering understanding than correcting it with little to no explanation they could use on their own.

Response to Mike Rose "Remediation at a Crossroads"

Mike Rose brings up a good point. The scholars of remediation and basic writing should be open to view the field from “multiple disciplines, multiple methodologies and from multiple lines of sight.” Combined scholarship may open avenues of understanding and learning not explored or taken into account by the other side. Students deserve as much support as we can offer.
The basic writing classes are filled with students from various backgrounds who are hoping to achieve academic and economic success. They know that having a college degree means you will likely earn more money than someone who doesn’t. Some students are first in their families, some are returning after long absences and still others are coming after only a few years out of high school.
Mr. Rose says “there’s not a lot of close analysis of what goes on in classrooms…” and if current classrooms are not being analyzed for scholarship, I think the time now is ripe for analysis to take place. If change is necessary to move remediation forward then we need to study what is going on with how students learn in the 21st century classroom. Students come in with so many different variables it would be interesting to see if a longitudinal study of today’s classroom would reveal any new information. As teachers we need to arm ourselves with as many resources we can so that we may reach the varied students that are in our classrooms.

A Visit From Susan Naomi Bernstein

Susan Naomi Bernstein visited our graduate class on April 16, 2013.
I became aware of her when I joined the Council of Basic Writing Facebook page. I find her passion in written response to issues in basic writing just as passionate as her reasons for creating Teaching Developmental Writing.
I would have liked to ask her to share her opinions on the similarities and/or differences between the basic writing and developmental writing. I’m sure we would have benefitted from her insights.
One of her guiding principles for the 4th edition of Teaching Developmental Writing was the “integration of multimedia with everyday life in the 21st century.” Including articles that explore the ideas and methods of incorporating literacy and technology may assist other professionals in using it in their classrooms. As technology continues to grow literacy will play an important part in that growth. The more resources and tools we have to help us in our careers the more we will be beneficial to our students.
Dr. Bernstein shared with us that this book was written for anyone at any stage in their career and anyone who enjoys reading and writing. In addition, this book is guided by the idea to teach students regardless of how institutions label, categorize and segregate students. I enjoyed her idea that we should take a strength base approach to students. Unfortunately, we did not have enough time to explore the topic in depth.
I look forward to reading the articles that Dr. Bernstein has shared that has touched her in some way. Her excitement of how these writers have raised her awareness about some issue was contagious and I was not the only one marking my book as she led us through the table of contents.

Letter to Susan Naomi Berstein

April 20, 2013
Susan Naomi Bernstein
College of New Rochelle
29 Castle Place
New Rochelle, NY 10805

Dear Ms. Bernstein,
Thank you for visiting our class on April 16, 2013.
You should know I read your responses and postings on the Council of Basic Writing Facebook page and always find them insightful and helpful. I was excited to learn that you were coming to visit us.
Your love of reading is a testament to the amount of work and passion you have for Teaching Developmental Writing. Because you have geared the book to an audience that includes anyone who reads or writes or teaches reading or writing, this book is accessible for everyone no matter where they are in their careers. The articles are so rich and diverse I look forward to reading them all, especially the ones you informed us that moved you in some special way.
The article that resonated for me is Valerie Kinloch’s “Harlem, Art and Literacy and Documenting.” I have been a Harlem resident for nine years now and after reading this article I realized I did not see “Harlem as Art.” I certainly did not recognize “Harlem as Art.” I’ve been too busy to see my adopted neighborhood as a piece of literature. Instead, I saw Harlem as a place where black literature began and not thinking that it continues despite the changes that seem to threaten its residents. I walk around Harlem with new eyes as a direct consequence of reading that article.
Because Teaching Developmental Writing was based on the belief of a student’s resilience and abilities to learn regardless of how institutions label, categorize, and segregate students, it is an invaluable resource for professionals and it will be an invaluable resource for me as I begin my teaching career.
I look forward to many more editions and I thank you again for taking the time to come to our class to share your experience and expertise.

Yours truly,
Nayanda M. Moore

Third Response to “Facts…”

What I enjoyed about this book is that each instructor discusses their reasoning for the lessons and assignments they give. The lessons build upon each other so by the middle of the term students are writing larger bodies of work. The constant reviewing, revising, and re-writing causes the student to always re-think and re-see their previous work. Ideas discovered in this process work themselves into revised papers that show the depth of understanding they have gained. In addition, class discussions of the assigned book opens the classroom to different views and questions other classmates might bring. Having a basic writing class function has a seminar is like a book club. The seminar allows the student to interact with the book, talk about and disagree with the book, much like a book club may do. However the obvious difference in a seminar is that a paper is required. But this process of book discussion to gain better understanding is an excellent way to have students share ideas before they put them on paper. I see it as a class brainstorming session in a way. They are finding meaning by discovering it together. It takes the text out of their head and gives it a voice.
Recently after reading chapter 7 “Acts of Wonderment: Fixing Mistakes and Correcting Errors” an opportunity arose for me to apply one of the techniques for approaching errors with a student from the writing center. Glynda Hull talks about ruled governed editing as opposed to meaning-driven editing. When teachers see errors, there’s an automatic response that takes over and the tendency is to make the corrections. Hull argues that if we prompt the student to understand why they make the errors they do, students are better able to correct them. She offers a transcript on page 206 where a tutor is prompting a student to find the mistakes in his writing.
A student brought in a paper with professor comments about her punctuation. Her paper was riddled with commas she didn’t need and they were not placed where they needed to be. Instead of showing her the ways commas are used I asked her to explain to me how she use a comma. This conversation allowed me to understand her logic in how language works to her because she was an English Language Learner. Once I understood her point of view and with a little explanation she was able to see why she didn’t need commas while reading over the rest of her assignment. We did not get a chance to complete the entire paper but she left the session feeling good about what she discovered and she felt confident she could finish it herself. I wasn’t shocked that it worked like it described in the book but I was surprised at how easy the conversation flowed and how open my student was to the process. Sometimes students just want to get in and get out. I’m sure I will see her again.

On Speaking and Writing Well (Revised Literary Essay with new title)

As I sit in my graduate courses at City College understanding how adults come to learn, it is not lost on me that I can see most of the concepts and theories being applied to me as I absorb this information. In an earlier class we read a study where children who were just beginning to learn language were not being corrected by their parents or caregivers. I thought it was indicative of society since I did not have any knowledge of how other children were raised and the role language played in their development. We, my four siblings and I, were always corrected in our grammar at home. In hindsight, I find it ironic how my brothers and sisters and I were given a strong foundation in how to speak correctly from parents who never finished high school. For example, we could not use “ain’t” because it wasn’t in the dictionary and therefore not a word. Double negatives were a definite no-no and “we be” or “I be” never fell from our mouths.
My mother came to New York, going into the 7th grade of school, from Princeton, North Carolina. Her birthday, which is in April, greeted her with harsh northern weather, and itchy sweaters. Her new school greeted her with students and teachers who kept asking her to repeat herself. “You talk funny” is a comment she would hear daily until eventually my mother spoke very little. She felt stupid amongst her peers. School was hard for my mother when she came to New York. Everything was too fast and she was conditioned to the slower pace of the south. I don’t believe my mother ever caught up with the demands of her new school and after becoming pregnant with me her school career ended. Today, I can still detect a southern dialect in my mother’s pronunciation of certain words. Perhaps her reason for making sure we used Standard English was so that we would not be thought of as stupid, that when her children opened their mouths to speak the right words would find their way to the listener.
As I write this last sentence, I am reminded of my struggles with my son, Jordan, because when he was a toddler his pediatrician suggested speech therapy sessions for him. My son is not an only child but having a sister who is 5 ½ years older makes it seems as if he is sometimes. He’d play quietly by himself and motion or point when he wanted something. After a few sessions with Maureen, she said “Jordan has his own language but he won’t verbalize it unless he can say it correctly.” It is then I began to notice how intent my son was in listening to our conversations; I could almost see him trying to say the words in his head. Today, he is an IEP student, in his last year of middle school, hopefully, struggling with having thoughtful responses ready to share with his class much like his mother. I did not notice myself in my son until the writing of this narrative. I, too, struggle with having well thought out responses when called upon. I did not trust my memory to recall what I thought I read. I also did not want to be wrong, much like Jordan. But unlike my son, I love to read.
As an avid reader of 1980’s trash novels of Jackie Collins, Sidney Sheldon and Danielle Steele, I developed a vivid imagination and began writing stories about my friend and reading them during classroom down town. Danielle Steele books became too formulaic because it seemed as if the same thing was happening in every book but with different characters in a different location. I was bored. However, I was a huge fan of Collins and Sheldon because their stories read like the movies. There was action, mystery and drama in Sheldon’s “If Tomorrow Comes.” Collins book “Hollywood Wives” was known for its scandalous and conniving characters who did anything to get what they wanted. In an interview I read of Jackie Collins she said each of her characters have traits of the famous people she knew, including her sister Joan. I tried to mirror that one aspect in my writing by creating characters using the names of people I knew, my classmates. Stories were great. They gave me audience and the attention I needed to show how clever I was with words. I liked to play with then, rhyme them, twist and break them to see what else they could do. They could make you laugh or cry, make you gasp with horror or incite you to riot. I realized writing was the most honest I could be with myself without ever having to say a word. With writing I tried to prove to myself that I had a voice, even if my tongue gets tied up by the nerves that infiltrate my stomach anytime my name is called on to participate. I imagine this is how my son feels.
Although I was the go to girl for story ideas, love letters to current, ex-boyfriends or girlfriends, I had not yet transferred this gift academically. My papers were a little too sing-songy and my ideas not clear or solid, so by the time I was in 12th grade English class, the novelty had worn off and I was just the cheesy girl who liked poetry.
I went to high school in New York City’s Hell’s Kitchen area where most of the students were black and Latino. They hailed from various parts of the city I’ve never heard of as I did not travel too far from my Long Island City home. My grades weren’t great but the one class I knew I could hold my own when I applied myself was English. My twelfth grade teacher, Mrs. Spilotro, was a stickler for the little things. I would constantly receive my papers back with comments about one thing or another. One that stuck out the most was how my cursive lower case “k” wasn’t a textbook cursive “k.” She made me do a homework assignment over ensuring I wrote the letter to her satisfaction. My efforts in my assignments were lacking. I felt she was nitpicking at everything I did because I didn’t voluntarily participate in class. Our relationship continued like this for most of the year.
However this would change after one particular assignment. Mrs. Spilotro had been reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to the class as we followed along in our books. Our books never left the classroom as they were shared with the other 12 grade English classes she taught. This did not give us the opportunity to explore the book on our own, to re-read what was read to us. I’m sure we had class discussions about it but I could recall none in my memory. What I do remember is after we had completed the book, we were asked to write a paper “using 12th grade English” to support or oppose our view of why or why shouldn’t The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn be taught in schools.
I supported the fact that the book should be taught in schools. I remember writing how Mark Twain did not use the word “nigger” to be derogatory but it was indicative of the time period, of how people referred to African-Americans in those days. I thought for Twain not to include it would do the story an injustice. Young boys referred to black men by calling him nigger on a daily basis. It didn’t matter the age of the speaker or receiver. Jim was expected to respond no matter who called him by that word. This paper was difficult to write because I knew my mother never liked the word having heard it hurled at her and her siblings as cars passed their front yard in Princeton. Knowing this upset my mother made me angry with the people who used it. I never liked how the word rang in my ears either but I couldn’t let my aversion for the word distract the fact that this book was being banned because of its language…language that was indicative of our history, that told the story of who we are and where we came from and how much we have grown.
When she handed all the graded papers back to the students, everyone received their copy except me. I thought to myself, here we go again. What’s wrong this time? As it turned out, nothing, it seemed as Mrs. Splilotro said to the class, “This essay was what I expected in your papers.” She read my paper entitled “Why Huckleberry Finn Should be Taught in Schools” to the class as I sat with mouth agape. As she’s reading students are looking around to see who this paper could belong to because the expected “A” students received theirs back. No one expected that it was mine.
When Mrs. Spilotro handed the paper to me I heard the collective gasp of my classmates. 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 I believed this book should still be taught in schools. That was the first time Mrs. Spilotro gave me the slightest of smiles that I read to say “Well done.” It had a profound effect on me because I finally felt that she was proud of my work. Even now, the nitpicking of the lowercase “k” seemed a little like forcing me to comply with the norms of proper handwriting but perhaps my lack of effort in my assignments did not warrant a different kind of response. How could she respond to what wasn’t there? How could I expect more when I was giving less? Once I gave her work that I had put some effort behind, I was accepted, part of a club where she would be proud to display my work.
I learned that 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? This point I realized was not valid enough argument to sustain throughout my paper. In the end I learned the difference between making up characters and situations and discussing and probing the characters and plots made up by authors and in doing so, I was able to develop some ideas that were my own despite what I felt internally.
Mrs. Spilotro did not recognize my linguistic competence until she read my essay. I did not recognize that I was flexing my linguistic abilities by writing stories that were playful and fun, speaking in a familiar and conversational tone with my classmates and then submitting an essay that caused me to think about why I was for or against an issue. This is when I first discovered that using academic language offered a different kind of praise than the creative writing language. For me it was the best of both worlds because I had friends who couldn’t wait for the next story and I had a teacher who knew I had what it took to produce a good academic essay.

#2nd Response to "Facts..."

I want to build off of the comments I made on Sofia's page about how the assignments were structured and the "kind" and "gentle" language Sofia refers to in her post.

In creating these assignments the authors have thought to use language that is welcoming while engaging them in a topic that is universal for the student population.  In addition, the students do not have to go too far back in their memory for a significant or insignificant incident in their adolescence.  These are carefully orchestrated baby steps for students "who have learned to think of themselves as incapable" (138).  The non-authoritative instructions and the redundancy of directions in assignments 2 through 6 (140) makes the work seem capable.   The almost cavalier attitude about not checking for correctness in the first couple of essays can even put the student at ease.  An emphasis is placed on getting every detail on paper placing grammar and spelling on the back burner so to speak.  The writing assignments are numbered and the reading assignments are lettered with the writing assignments continually asking the students to re-see their work, the work of their classmates and the work of the assigned authors in relation to what they have read.  When they re-see, they re-think and become less afraid of sharing their thoughts and more committed in shaping them.  Using non-fiction material along side fiction, with students who may have never read a complete book, provides a diverse and varied foundation in their reading career.  There's a great deal of scaffolding here as well as Krashen's i+1.

The assignments build upon each other, referencing the previous assignment as well as the class discussions. Each writing assignment is a little above the level of the student but it does not intimidate him. "Most of you have written about how unique or extraordinary experiences have made an impression on you.  For this paper, we'd like you to write about yourself as a representative case..." (63).
These are the beginning instructions for Writing Assignment 6.  By this time the students have been writing and revising their essays on significant issues that have happened to them in adolescence. Assignment 3 asks students to rewrite their essay incorporating the professor comments and what they have come to know to present a more "precise and insightful representation" of what they have come to understand through previous readings and discussions.  By Assignment 4 they are being asked to give comments about the difference between insignificant and significant events and in Assignment 5, because the commentary wasn't fully realized previously, they are asked to work on it again while being cognizant of teacher comments during the revising.
The constant revising, re-seeing, re-writing, re-thinking makes reading and writing an active, almost tedious task in the 70's.  In addition, all of this writing is done manually (except for the midterm) so the considerable amount of time that went into creating this basic writing course is being transferred to the student who must put in a considerable amount of time to pass this course.



I

Dear Mr. Jamaid,

First, I would like to apologize for walking in late during your presentation to our Basic Writing Theory and Pedagogy class at City College on February 26th. I am a punctual student and would usually not come into a class if I was going to be more than fifteen minutes late but after reading the books you provided for my class, I had to make an exception.
The book I have enjoyed most is the “The Norton Field Guide to Writing” because not only is it reader friendly, I feel it speaks to me as a teacher and as a grad student. As a teacher, the four parts, Rhetorical Situations, Genres, Strategies and Doing Research, gives me the tools I need to help basic writers hone their skills. You’ve made the content easy to follow, thereby easy to teach. All I have to do is add the creativity and structure it to my student population. As a grad student, I like that the subjects are color coded, referenced and highlighted throughout the book, making everything easy to find. For these reasons I find “The Norton Field Guide to Writing” a treasured resource I will refer to throughout my career.
Thank you for your gifts to our class. The 3 books plus internet access for “The Little Seagull Digital Handbook” is generous and very appreciated. You have made this foray into teaching for those of us with little experience to no experience a little bit easier to navigate.


Yours truly,
Nayanda M. Moore

Response to Facts Artifacts and Counterfacts...

What I find fascinating about this account of the basic reading and writing program at the University of Pittsburgh in 1977 is the commitment the instructors have given to developing a course that helps a student progress in his writing. Because there were no computers at the time, every revision had to be done by hand, every draft kept, revisited and revised. As is true now, the basic writers in this course were not the mainstreamed students, but the marginalized, the minorities, the underprepared. The authors contend that the students must mis-read and use this misreading as a sign of their place as a reader and not as a failure. But I believe they already see themselves to be failures because they are in a basic writing course.
A great deal of work went into developing this course and it reminds me of Kimberly K. Gunter's article on "Braiding..." in that this basic writing course allows the students to use the language that they already posses and incorporate it with the texts of other authors and by the end of the semester, other scholars. We can see how the case study on John revealed his progression even after two years of having completed the program. He learned to write exploratory drafts as a way to help get all of his thoughts down so that he can organize his writing.
One can tell a great deal of time was spent in creating this course and I wonder how and if this course can be modified to fit the time frames we have now in the basic writing course. The classes in community colleges are much bigger now and the class time has diminished. Basic writing classes do not meet three times a week therefore modifications must be made if one were to think about using this methodology in the classroom.