Below are the questions we used to frame the discussion of Elbow.
How did Elbow use his writing diary?
What does he mean by writing that growing writing is not just producing words and throwing some away? (p. 32)
What was hardest for Elbow about his writing process? What's hardest for you?
What are some of the realizations Elbow arrived at from watching his writing process? (p. 36)
What does he mean by thinking about writing in terms of a developmental model? Do you believe in this idea? (p.44)
What are your "stages" for writing a "long" assignment?
We focused on the chapter about growing your writing, the chapter on the drafting process. Elbow takes a developmental approach to writing, thinks of the writing process as organic, emphasizes that writing is a place where you discover what you have to say, and points out that although there is some chaos (discomfort) in writing when you don't know what you have to say - that is they way writing often works.
Although process theory can make writing seem like it is linear - starting with invention, moving through invention, and then proceeding through revision and editing - Elbow's discussion points out that for many if not most of us it is much messier. Still, even though they are much more mixed up, it remains useful to talk about writing process in terms of figuring out ideas (finding what we have to say) = invention; drafting (getting what we have to say into some approximation of the form we want to use to say it); and revision (refining, sharpening and in some cases completely changing the form and content of what we have written through adding, deleting, substituting and rearranging our draft).
Elbow's chapter put us in a good position to talk about the process narrative (see assignment sheet posted to the right) which is what we spent the rest of class working on. First we did some writing on the revision process for the literacy narrative (so you have some evidence of your process for revising). The prompts we used are listed below.
Writing about revision
What was your overall stragetgy for revising?
(respond to feedback from Chandler? from peers? check whether you met the requirements on the assignment sheet? correct/errors? read for the overall "flow" of the essay? some combination of these?) Write as much as you can about how you acted on that strategy, step by step.
Did you use one strategy at a time, or everything at once? For example, did you revise for focus, then for organization, and then for development, and then proofread? Or everything at once?
What role did finding your focus play in the revision process (did your draft still leave you in the "chaos" phase described by Elbow - or did you already have a strong focus from the draft and just work on sharpening that focus)?
How did you handle the invention that you needed to do in your revising process?
If you needed to draft additional sections, how did you manage going back and forth between re-reading what you'd already written and writing additional sections?
What were the most important changes you made? What was the most frequent "kind" of revision you made: addition, deletion, substitution, reorganization
How did you feel as you revised?
After a short discussion, we took a look at the assignment sheet, and noted that one of the requirements was to reflect on how your writing process was changing, and to think about how you might want to further change it in the future. Rather than have you reflect in a general way on how your process has changes, you did some writing about your process from HS and college. The prompts are listed below.
How is your writing process changing/growing?
how did you write in high school? for English papers? for research paper?
How did you write when you came to college (college english)? Were the changes you made successful? Any changes you feel you might need to make?
Describe your writing process for writing a long paper. Were you successful? Was it stressful? What might you need to change?
After you wrote to these prompts, we listed some words to describe your process for HS, and for college, and noted how these practices correlated with the audience (teacher) expectations, the purpose for your writing (for the grade, to complete the assignment) and the form.
below is a sampling of notes from this discussion:
HS
step-by-step
teacher centered (for the grade)
follow teacher's directions (formulaic)
very conscious of what the teacher expected
stream of consciousness
one-shot through
teacher centered
notes=> cheat sheet
invent conclusion
aural/participation (rather than from written directions)
write question
College
longer, fewere sources=> more original thought
brainstorm
find idea
switch writing around (revision)
more organic rather than formulaic
We used these descriptions as a way to notice some general changes as students moved from HS to college: students took more ownership of their writing, meaning they wrote more for themselves than for the teacher; they were writing for a different, often more demanding audience, and they were writing in new (unfamiliar sometimes) genres => these changes in audience, purpose + form for the writing caused students to spend more time on finding their meanings (because they were their meanings), to spend more time revising. What the particular changes are will be different for different writers, but in general, as the demands and contexts for writing change, so does the process.
We didn't get a chance to go through the last exercise I had planned for today, which was to do some naming (categorizing) of what is going on in the processes you have been describing in the writing posted to your process page. Below I have posted a list of moves to make to do some of that categorizing. You will work through some version of this process in class, next week, both working on your own writing, and working in groups.
Identifying some categories for your process essay
Look at what you have written about the different parts of your writing process: invention, drafting, revising, editing.
Pay attention both to the content of what you have written + the feeling.
As we did with the writing you did for the prompts about how your writing has changed, list some words to characterize your writing for each part of the process
Are there any words, ideas, feelings that come up over and over in your writing about any part of the writing process, or in your writing about the writing process as a whole?
What are the most "important" words to characterize what you do in each part of the process?
Then, make some notes about what you did and how the audience, purpose and genre (form) of the writing influenced the kind of writing you did for each part of the process.
For next class:
Read: Elbow, Chapter 3
Write: any additional descriptions of writing process you will need for your process essay
What should be posted for the process page so far:
1.28 writing for the 3 questions on the Literacy narrative (invention) Title the post: 1.28Name_Technologies
2.11 writing on process for drafting the literacy narrative
2. 18 observations about your writing process (the kind of reflective observations we worked on in class last week - but for writing projects/processes other than the literacy narrative
2. 25 writing on process for revising literacy narrative
2.25 writing on how writing process is changing
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
2.25 Scoring for Literacy Narrative Unit
Today you turned in your literacy narratives. I hope to look them over and have them back to you by next class. Below is how the work will be scored. Note that this is different than the scoring posted on 2.4.
What will be taken into account for the grade for this unit:
in-class writing 1.21 (10 points)
in-class writing 1.28 (10 points)
stories (details to help find a focus) (10 points)
rough draft (for workshop) + final draft (70)
peer comments for classmates (25)
Total: (125 points)
What will be taken into account for the grade for this unit:
in-class writing 1.21 (10 points)
in-class writing 1.28 (10 points)
stories (details to help find a focus) (10 points)
rough draft (for workshop) + final draft (70)
peer comments for classmates (25)
Total: (125 points)
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
2.18 Workshop on literacy narrative
Noticing the difference between "Elbow feedback" and traditional teacher comments
Each of you should have received an email with feedback notes for your draft literacy narratives. At the beginning of class I asked you to take about 10 minutes to read through this feedback, and to post two kinds of observations about it.
The first kinds of observations were about the form of the feedback. What stance to the comments take? What kind of tone or voice are they written in? What was the focus of the kinds of comments it offered? how did you feel about it?
The second kinds of observations were about what that feedback did, and how it "helped" you think about revising your essay.
Features of Elbow-style feedback.
In our discussion in class, you noted that the tone was "personal," like a not or a conversation, where you, the author, were addressed as a person. The comments were observations, statements of the reader's feelings and ideas - rather than judgments of the author's (your) work. You said you were "not being attacked or judged" => which is what teacher's comments often feel like. You noted that many of the comments asked questions or gave you something to think about (expanded on something you wrote), and that these comments pointed to particular places in the text. As best I could, I meant these comments to model Elbow's pointing, summarizing, and telling (I didn't do much of the showing, but some of my more abstract discussions might have approached that).
What you saw the comments on your literacy narratives as accomplishing
The importance of getting in the habit of giving respectful, positive feedback. Before we got into a discussion of these comments, we talked about why bother learning to write feedback in this form. In your literacy narratives, one common theme was that school writing felt bad, and often the reason was connected to the relentless "suggestions" to make your writing more "correct" or better. Whether we mean to or not, many of us adopt the judgmental, faultfinding stance of our teachers when we work on revising our writing. This can make going back over a draft painful and unproductive.
By adopting the stance described by Elbow in Chapter 4, writers can talk to themselves about revising their writing in less harsh terms. We can question what is happening, wonder about how we respond and why, point to particularly effective or confusing places and be curious about what to do, and we can do this using a positive rather than a negative voice. This habit of seeing our work as something in progress that we are going to respond to in terms of what it does, rather than in terms of what is "wrong" with it - can make our relationships to writing more comfortable and positive.
After talking through the features of Elbow-style feedback, you spent the rest of class writing feedback for group-member's drafts.
Turning in + evaluation of peer feedback
We agreed that each of you would post a page (Titled "LNFeedback) to the Literacy narrative page. On that page you would write your Elbow-style feedback for each of the writers in your group. You will circulate feedback to the writers in your group through the approaches you decided on last week.
You will get credit/feedback on your comments to your classmate based on the form (needs to have the features listed in your book and above) and the content (needs to speak to the particular writing needs of the author you are writing to).
As you make your final revisions to your literacy narratives. . .
be sure to go back to the assignment sheet and re-read the criteria for the grade. In general as I reviewed your literacy narratives, I noticed that almost every writer had an overall focus (attention to how in particular they grew as a writer) but in most cases this focus needed 1) to be stated more directly, and 2) to be tied more closely to the stories used to develop it.
My notes on what to say to the class as a whole on how to work on their literacy narratives were:
3. Make more direct, explicit connections between the stories and your overall focus = more reflections on what the stories show with respect to the focus=> to state how the story develops/connects to the overall focus (what point does it make).
Thank you for writing such fabulous drafts! They were a pleasure to read!
For next class:
Read: Introduction, Chapters 1 Elbow review; read Chapter 2
Write: 1) Post to your site the final literacy narrative, along with the rough draft & "Elbow-style" comments for your group.
2) observations about your writing process (the kind of reflective observations we worked on in class last week - but for writing projects/processes other than the literacy narrative) => you need enough material so that you can do the practice analysis in class on 2.25
Each of you should have received an email with feedback notes for your draft literacy narratives. At the beginning of class I asked you to take about 10 minutes to read through this feedback, and to post two kinds of observations about it.
The first kinds of observations were about the form of the feedback. What stance to the comments take? What kind of tone or voice are they written in? What was the focus of the kinds of comments it offered? how did you feel about it?
The second kinds of observations were about what that feedback did, and how it "helped" you think about revising your essay.
Features of Elbow-style feedback.
In our discussion in class, you noted that the tone was "personal," like a not or a conversation, where you, the author, were addressed as a person. The comments were observations, statements of the reader's feelings and ideas - rather than judgments of the author's (your) work. You said you were "not being attacked or judged" => which is what teacher's comments often feel like. You noted that many of the comments asked questions or gave you something to think about (expanded on something you wrote), and that these comments pointed to particular places in the text. As best I could, I meant these comments to model Elbow's pointing, summarizing, and telling (I didn't do much of the showing, but some of my more abstract discussions might have approached that).
What you saw the comments on your literacy narratives as accomplishing
- pointing out the need for development (through asking questions, pointing to places of confusion)
- observing/suggesting patterns in your writing (summarizing what I got out of your writing/pointing to places I got it, telling what I thought it meant/showed)
- flippping or questioning conclusions (through telling about feelings + ideas in me as a reader)
- validation of your ideas for what you need to work on (through noticing that my response was similar to yours => so you have a good ground to move forward with your revising
The importance of getting in the habit of giving respectful, positive feedback. Before we got into a discussion of these comments, we talked about why bother learning to write feedback in this form. In your literacy narratives, one common theme was that school writing felt bad, and often the reason was connected to the relentless "suggestions" to make your writing more "correct" or better. Whether we mean to or not, many of us adopt the judgmental, faultfinding stance of our teachers when we work on revising our writing. This can make going back over a draft painful and unproductive.
By adopting the stance described by Elbow in Chapter 4, writers can talk to themselves about revising their writing in less harsh terms. We can question what is happening, wonder about how we respond and why, point to particularly effective or confusing places and be curious about what to do, and we can do this using a positive rather than a negative voice. This habit of seeing our work as something in progress that we are going to respond to in terms of what it does, rather than in terms of what is "wrong" with it - can make our relationships to writing more comfortable and positive.
After talking through the features of Elbow-style feedback, you spent the rest of class writing feedback for group-member's drafts.
Turning in + evaluation of peer feedback
We agreed that each of you would post a page (Titled "LNFeedback) to the Literacy narrative page. On that page you would write your Elbow-style feedback for each of the writers in your group. You will circulate feedback to the writers in your group through the approaches you decided on last week.
You will get credit/feedback on your comments to your classmate based on the form (needs to have the features listed in your book and above) and the content (needs to speak to the particular writing needs of the author you are writing to).
As you make your final revisions to your literacy narratives. . .
be sure to go back to the assignment sheet and re-read the criteria for the grade. In general as I reviewed your literacy narratives, I noticed that almost every writer had an overall focus (attention to how in particular they grew as a writer) but in most cases this focus needed 1) to be stated more directly, and 2) to be tied more closely to the stories used to develop it.
My notes on what to say to the class as a whole on how to work on their literacy narratives were:
1. work on the introduction => more direct statement of what you are going to say to the reader about your development as a writer. This should not be just a general statement; it should include some indication of what the stories show about how the supporting points fit within this overall generalization.
2. Keep working on illustrating/showing your points =>more stories
3. Make more direct, explicit connections between the stories and your overall focus = more reflections on what the stories show with respect to the focus=> to state how the story develops/connects to the overall focus (what point does it make).
Thank you for writing such fabulous drafts! They were a pleasure to read!
For next class:
Read: Introduction, Chapters 1 Elbow review; read Chapter 2
Write: 1) Post to your site the final literacy narrative, along with the rough draft & "Elbow-style" comments for your group.
2) observations about your writing process (the kind of reflective observations we worked on in class last week - but for writing projects/processes other than the literacy narrative) => you need enough material so that you can do the practice analysis in class on 2.25
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
2.11 Brainstorming for process narrative + Peer groups/feedback
At the beginning of class I called your attention to the post for last week where I listed the point allocation for process/product turned in for the literacy narrative. 40% is for in-class invention, 60% is for the drafts + final narrative.
We started work today by having you do some in-class writing for the process narrative. (The prompt is pasted in at the end of this post). As you wrote we had an on-going conversation regarding your observations of and reflections on patterns in your writing process and what they might suggest about how you write.
During the second half of class we discussed Peter Elbow's suggestions for a teacherless classroom, and how to make new use of writing groups. As we talked through the points in Elbow's chapter, you got into groups, worked through the planning steps, and then began some peer work using his method.
The main idea behind Elbow's suggestions is that writers "don't need advice about changes to make" or "theories of what is good or bad writing" (p.77). What they need, according to Elbow, is for readers to say back/provide information about how their writing affects them. To this end he suggests that writers work in committed, long-term groups of about 7 people, to provide one another with exactly that kind of feedback.
In particular, he indicates that the kind of feedback writers need is about pointing, summarizing, telling, and showing (see the headings in Chapter 4). That is, readers provide writers information about: 1) what gets their attention and drew them in (and what doesn't makes sense or connect) by pointing to particular words and phrases; 2) what they hear their writing as saying (summarizing what the "get" as a whole, and by parts); 3) by telling the writer how they felt, what when through their head, what they thought as they read the piece; 4) and by "showing" responses to writing (see p. 90 for showing, which is a little harder to grasp than the first three kinds of feedback
Our class now has 3 writers groups.
Maria, Heloiza, Ally, Brittany P, and Elena
Jo-Sette, Julia, Brittany T, Celena, and Aaron
Melissa, Alleli, Eve, Mody and Meghan
I will be forwarding a group email, with everyone in each group cc'd, so you can all be in touch.
Each group decided on role (facilitator, timekeeper, and reporter), and worked out a protocol for sharing their work so that group members have access to each other's writing. We then spent the rest of class "practicing" providing feedback to what you have written so far for the literacy narrative.
In the (very quick) say-back after this practice using Elbow's method, I noticed that some of you seem to want the regular kind of feedback on your literacy narratives (what to work on suggestions). That is OK if you want to do that, but remember, that the primary charge of your group is to provide one another feedback which consists of pointing, summarizing, telling and showing => feedback that gives the author a detailed idea of what readers heard in her/his writing, how they felt about it, what struck them and what was confusing, etc. Your primary role as a peer is NOT to provide suggestions (leave that to the author) but to tell the reader your response.
For next class:
Read: Elbow Introduction + Chapter 1
Write:
1) Post the process writing for composing your literacy narrative draft.
2) Post some observations about your writing process for another assignment or kind of writing that write back to the prompts (or something similar) that we wrote to in class (in this blog post)
3) Write a plan for revising your literacy narrative based on feedback from our group. If you didn't get feedback today, you may post this after class next week.
Did you cut/paste - move any sections of text from another document?
We started work today by having you do some in-class writing for the process narrative. (The prompt is pasted in at the end of this post). As you wrote we had an on-going conversation regarding your observations of and reflections on patterns in your writing process and what they might suggest about how you write.
During the second half of class we discussed Peter Elbow's suggestions for a teacherless classroom, and how to make new use of writing groups. As we talked through the points in Elbow's chapter, you got into groups, worked through the planning steps, and then began some peer work using his method.
The main idea behind Elbow's suggestions is that writers "don't need advice about changes to make" or "theories of what is good or bad writing" (p.77). What they need, according to Elbow, is for readers to say back/provide information about how their writing affects them. To this end he suggests that writers work in committed, long-term groups of about 7 people, to provide one another with exactly that kind of feedback.
In particular, he indicates that the kind of feedback writers need is about pointing, summarizing, telling, and showing (see the headings in Chapter 4). That is, readers provide writers information about: 1) what gets their attention and drew them in (and what doesn't makes sense or connect) by pointing to particular words and phrases; 2) what they hear their writing as saying (summarizing what the "get" as a whole, and by parts); 3) by telling the writer how they felt, what when through their head, what they thought as they read the piece; 4) and by "showing" responses to writing (see p. 90 for showing, which is a little harder to grasp than the first three kinds of feedback
Our class now has 3 writers groups.
Maria, Heloiza, Ally, Brittany P, and Elena
Jo-Sette, Julia, Brittany T, Celena, and Aaron
Melissa, Alleli, Eve, Mody and Meghan
I will be forwarding a group email, with everyone in each group cc'd, so you can all be in touch.
Each group decided on role (facilitator, timekeeper, and reporter), and worked out a protocol for sharing their work so that group members have access to each other's writing. We then spent the rest of class "practicing" providing feedback to what you have written so far for the literacy narrative.
In the (very quick) say-back after this practice using Elbow's method, I noticed that some of you seem to want the regular kind of feedback on your literacy narratives (what to work on suggestions). That is OK if you want to do that, but remember, that the primary charge of your group is to provide one another feedback which consists of pointing, summarizing, telling and showing => feedback that gives the author a detailed idea of what readers heard in her/his writing, how they felt about it, what struck them and what was confusing, etc. Your primary role as a peer is NOT to provide suggestions (leave that to the author) but to tell the reader your response.
For next class:
Read: Elbow Introduction + Chapter 1
Write:
1) Post the process writing for composing your literacy narrative draft.
2) Post some observations about your writing process for another assignment or kind of writing that write back to the prompts (or something similar) that we wrote to in class (in this blog post)
3) Write a plan for revising your literacy narrative based on feedback from our group. If you didn't get feedback today, you may post this after class next week.
Did you compose this draft in more than one sitting? Describe each “session” (in so far as you can) in terms of:
Where were you when you wrote? Describe the setting.
What technologies did you use to write?
Did you use information/ideas from a previous session? Where did they come from? How did you access them as you work writing this time (for example: from memory, re-read note, worked on same text/draft. ..)
Describe your process - from beginning to end, in as much detail as you can remember it.
For the invention process
For the drafting process:
What did you expect to do in this session?
What did you end up accomplishing?
Which sections came most easily? Describe the writing process for these.
What did you end up accomplishing?
Which sections came most easily? Describe the writing process for these.
Which sections were hardest? Describe the writing process for these?
What parts did you write first?
What parts did you write last?
Are there any sections of this draft that you deleted? Rearranged? Changed the wording for in a major way: Describe.
Did you write rapidly in some places and sit and “think” for others? Describe places that came easily + places that were “hard”?
In what places did you spend the most time?
Did you take time to “brainstorm” or think about what to add for any section in this document? More than one? Describe.
Were there interruptions? (talking to friends, selecting playlists, phone calls, etc) => how did they affect the flow of your writing?
Did you cut/paste - move any sections of text from another document?
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
2.4 Writing and culture, and more work on literacy narratives
Brainstorming/invention for Literacy narrative. You each should have received some comments/feedback for the writing you have posted so far at your portfolio for the literacy narrative, and for the process narrative. Writing to the prompts is part of the assignment (you get credit for them); they engage a process for writing which may be new to you, and which it is one goal of this course to teach. If you are behind in these posts, you have time to catch up and receive credit, though I may not get a chance to give feedback. The literacy narrative will be graded as follows:
in-class writing 1.21 (10 points)
in-class writing 1.28 (10 points)
stories (details to help find a focus) (20 points)
rough draft (for workshop) + final draft (with substantive revisions; you must turn in both drafts) (60 points)
Total: 100 points
Identifying what makes a "good" literacy narrative.
We spent the first part (most of) class reviewing the sample literacy narratives in light of the guidelines we developed from the assignment sheet. (see below)
Guide for thinking about what to work on/how to give feedback for literacy narratives
1. Audience/genre features (15%)
Should be in first person, set up a focus in the intro + come back to that focus in the conclusion: present a series of stories to make a point; make reflective generalizations based on the stories that create a focus.
2. Focus (25%) : clear statement at the outset, stories/examples should reflect that focus; each "point" /paragraph should connect to the focus in a different way;
3. Development (25%): includes detailed, particular stories or examples that "show" how the points related to the focus work; stories /examples should be relevant to the focus and there should be a range of stories so that each story develops the focus in a different way.
4. Organization (25%) : should reflect the focus and its components
should move between specific examples/stories and general, reflective statements which connect back to the focus. May be chronological but does not have to be
introduction (set up focus); body (develop focus through a series of points; and a conclusion which relates back to the focus, draws the paper together and brings it to a conclusion.
Internal organization of paragraphs: set up, development, transition to next point/reflection on focus.
5. Correctness (10%): not so many grammatical/spelling errors as to confuse meaning or distract from reading.
After we talked through the rubric/guidelines, you worked in groups to identify the strengths & weaknesses of the sample literacy narratives, and to make suggestions for what the authors should work on. You did a great job on these!
Cultural assumptions, values and beliefs (about writing) McCool.
During the last half hour of class we did a very rushed job talking through the McCool essays. He categorizes the different cultural assumptions associated with tolerance and intolerance for uncertainty. We reviewed the reading by looking at the "charts" where he sums up how tolerance for uncertaintly v intolerance for uncertainty cultures dealt with social relations (p.23); communication (p. 30); rules (p. 34); and time (p. 40). In general, he used United States (Western) culture's preferences for individualism, equality, particular (rather than theoretical) legal systems and so on as an example of a tolerance for uncertainty (diversity + difference) culture, and Eastern and some European cultures as examples of more socially centered value systems, less "literal" relationships fo language, and more theoretical relationships to laws. As we talked through these different postions, I asked you to think about where you placed yourself within these value systems.
We didn't really get a chance to talk through the section about language and culture, but rather I suggested that you think about your language values through reflecting on the following questions posed by McCool's discussion.
1. Do you believe words "mean what they say"? Are words "accurate" or metaphoric? Can words say all that we mean?
2. How much does context influence meaning?
3. What is your idea of "good" writing: writing that is simple, direct, and concise? or writing that is ambiguous, round-about, and an expression of a meaning that implies more than what is on the page?
4. What role do you feel emotion plays in writing?
5. How "positive" is your writing? Do you generally express ideas in terms of positive language constructions (This essay needs stronger organization) or negative constructions (This essay is badly organized).
Your answers to these questions suggest something about the (often unconscious) assumptions, values, and beliefs that will shape the way you communicate. It is important to reflect on these predispositions, both so that you can "hear" what others might say with out immediately (unconsciously) judging it as wrong; and so that you can present your ideas in language that individuals different from you will understand & relate to.
For next class:
Read: Elbow, Chapter 4, (this is the chapter on working in groups on writing)
Write: 1) post any pre-writing you want to add to your literacy narrative page; 2) post any observations/detailed descriptions of your writing process you want to add as "data" to the process narrative page; 3) post your draft literacy narrative.
The draft literacy narrative does NOT need to be perfect. Don't spend a lot of time crafting the sentences. You work here is to work on setting up a focus, using the right kind of "stories" to develop that focus, and thinking about the overall organization.
Thanks for the good discussion in class and I'm looking forward to reading your literacy narratives!
in-class writing 1.21 (10 points)
in-class writing 1.28 (10 points)
stories (details to help find a focus) (20 points)
rough draft (for workshop) + final draft (with substantive revisions; you must turn in both drafts) (60 points)
Total: 100 points
Identifying what makes a "good" literacy narrative.
We spent the first part (most of) class reviewing the sample literacy narratives in light of the guidelines we developed from the assignment sheet. (see below)
Guide for thinking about what to work on/how to give feedback for literacy narratives
1. Audience/genre features (15%)
Should be in first person, set up a focus in the intro + come back to that focus in the conclusion: present a series of stories to make a point; make reflective generalizations based on the stories that create a focus.
2. Focus (25%) : clear statement at the outset, stories/examples should reflect that focus; each "point" /paragraph should connect to the focus in a different way;
3. Development (25%): includes detailed, particular stories or examples that "show" how the points related to the focus work; stories /examples should be relevant to the focus and there should be a range of stories so that each story develops the focus in a different way.
4. Organization (25%) : should reflect the focus and its components
should move between specific examples/stories and general, reflective statements which connect back to the focus. May be chronological but does not have to be
introduction (set up focus); body (develop focus through a series of points; and a conclusion which relates back to the focus, draws the paper together and brings it to a conclusion.
Internal organization of paragraphs: set up, development, transition to next point/reflection on focus.
5. Correctness (10%): not so many grammatical/spelling errors as to confuse meaning or distract from reading.
After we talked through the rubric/guidelines, you worked in groups to identify the strengths & weaknesses of the sample literacy narratives, and to make suggestions for what the authors should work on. You did a great job on these!
Cultural assumptions, values and beliefs (about writing) McCool.
During the last half hour of class we did a very rushed job talking through the McCool essays. He categorizes the different cultural assumptions associated with tolerance and intolerance for uncertainty. We reviewed the reading by looking at the "charts" where he sums up how tolerance for uncertaintly v intolerance for uncertainty cultures dealt with social relations (p.23); communication (p. 30); rules (p. 34); and time (p. 40). In general, he used United States (Western) culture's preferences for individualism, equality, particular (rather than theoretical) legal systems and so on as an example of a tolerance for uncertainty (diversity + difference) culture, and Eastern and some European cultures as examples of more socially centered value systems, less "literal" relationships fo language, and more theoretical relationships to laws. As we talked through these different postions, I asked you to think about where you placed yourself within these value systems.
We didn't really get a chance to talk through the section about language and culture, but rather I suggested that you think about your language values through reflecting on the following questions posed by McCool's discussion.
1. Do you believe words "mean what they say"? Are words "accurate" or metaphoric? Can words say all that we mean?
2. How much does context influence meaning?
3. What is your idea of "good" writing: writing that is simple, direct, and concise? or writing that is ambiguous, round-about, and an expression of a meaning that implies more than what is on the page?
4. What role do you feel emotion plays in writing?
5. How "positive" is your writing? Do you generally express ideas in terms of positive language constructions (This essay needs stronger organization) or negative constructions (This essay is badly organized).
Your answers to these questions suggest something about the (often unconscious) assumptions, values, and beliefs that will shape the way you communicate. It is important to reflect on these predispositions, both so that you can "hear" what others might say with out immediately (unconsciously) judging it as wrong; and so that you can present your ideas in language that individuals different from you will understand & relate to.
For next class:
Read: Elbow, Chapter 4, (this is the chapter on working in groups on writing)
Write: 1) post any pre-writing you want to add to your literacy narrative page; 2) post any observations/detailed descriptions of your writing process you want to add as "data" to the process narrative page; 3) post your draft literacy narrative.
The draft literacy narrative does NOT need to be perfect. Don't spend a lot of time crafting the sentences. You work here is to work on setting up a focus, using the right kind of "stories" to develop that focus, and thinking about the overall organization.
Thanks for the good discussion in class and I'm looking forward to reading your literacy narratives!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
