I enjoyed the Sara Biggs Chaney articlebecause it brought several things into perspective. As I brought up in class, I'd never thought of plagiarism as a form of resistance. Resistance, for me, always meant a student was reluctant to write a paper or turn in an assignment. Maybe they would only write half of the required pages or something of that nature. Plagiarism always fell in a category by itself. But, I suppose plagiarism is a form of resistance. I mean, it is a refusal of the student to complete the assignment. And, it begs the question of what was the student thinking? Could she have possibly thought she could get away with it?
One thing which really bothered me about the paper was that Chaney, though she had been careful to point out what plagiarism was and how it was used, somehow blamed herself for the student's choice (32). She spends pages explaining the process of telling the students about plagiarism, as well as examples. She went to great lengths to show that plagiarism is dishonest. But, she still wondered, "What am I doing wrong?"
Now, I think all teachers go through this sort of nagging feeling when grading a test. If some of the studentss fail, the first question we ask ourselves is, "What am I doing wrong?" I can understand trying to better your instruction methods in order to reach more students but, The fact of the matter is that "Amber" made a concious choice that did not involve the instruction of the class. She knew the possible punishment of such an action and was aware that it was dishonest, and she did it anyway. Some kids are just going to do bad things and it has nothing to do with teaching methods.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Jerrie Cobb Scott
In "Literacies and Deficits Revisited," Jerrie Cobb Scott talks about a way to define literacy. One part in the article that I could not get out of my head is when the author explains that defining literacy as the ability to read and write would break the cultures of the world into two groups: literate and oral societies. Cobb explains that defining literacy as the ability to read and write "is inherently biased against oral culture." (206)
It's hard to disagree with this assertion, but is it possible to be biased against something as obviously inferior? That's right, I see illiterate societies as inferior to non-literate societies based upon the number of societies with literate cultures thriving as industrialized nations versus the number of orally literate cultures thriving as industrialized nations. Show me a successfully thriving culture based on Oral literacy and I'll show you 80 thriving cultures based on being literate.
It's a small point, easily skimmed over, but it stuck out to me and I had to get that off my chest.
That being said, I agree with a lot that Cobb says in the rest of the article. Cobb explains that we are presenting a sort of Utopia to our students. If the students work hard, they will be rewarded for their efforts (209). Cobb calls for us to be realistic about this sort of ideal, and I have to agree. Just look at the number of people who are laid-off when an automobile manufacturer moves to Mexico. We can't justify that all of the workers just weren't trying hard enough at their jobs, so we look the other way and tell the students that life is fair in its rewards.
But, then, how can we sell our product (a good education) if the product doesn't garner the promised results? Man, in reflection, this was a far more depressing article than any of the others we've read in class.
It's hard to disagree with this assertion, but is it possible to be biased against something as obviously inferior? That's right, I see illiterate societies as inferior to non-literate societies based upon the number of societies with literate cultures thriving as industrialized nations versus the number of orally literate cultures thriving as industrialized nations. Show me a successfully thriving culture based on Oral literacy and I'll show you 80 thriving cultures based on being literate.
It's a small point, easily skimmed over, but it stuck out to me and I had to get that off my chest.
That being said, I agree with a lot that Cobb says in the rest of the article. Cobb explains that we are presenting a sort of Utopia to our students. If the students work hard, they will be rewarded for their efforts (209). Cobb calls for us to be realistic about this sort of ideal, and I have to agree. Just look at the number of people who are laid-off when an automobile manufacturer moves to Mexico. We can't justify that all of the workers just weren't trying hard enough at their jobs, so we look the other way and tell the students that life is fair in its rewards.
But, then, how can we sell our product (a good education) if the product doesn't garner the promised results? Man, in reflection, this was a far more depressing article than any of the others we've read in class.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Issues of Attitudes and Access
Computers have become a somewhat ubiquitous thing in our lives. As college students, we rely heavily on computers for writing papers, email and internet access. I don't know about those who do not own computers, but it would be difficult for me to function if I didn't own a computer with internet access. And, this seems to be the going trend. Those who wish to succeed have to have some basic computer skills.
I see computers much the way that Richard Rodriguez sees the English language. I read Rodriguez's book, Hunger of Memory, for class. In it, Rodriguez says that it is impossible for people to succeed in America and take part in the American dream if they do not have a command of the English language. Rodriguez, for those who don't know, started speaking English in Elementary school and is an opponent to bilingual education. It's funny, because I always thought that opponents to bilingual education were racists (conservatives). But, it's hard to argue with Rodriguez. How many businesses in America are run by people who don't speak English? How many congressmen, CEOs or Doctors? Not speaking English, as pointed out by Rodriguez, is a definite handicap in America.
Like I said, this is the same way I view the internet. I've said it in class, but I lost internet access for a week while the phone company sent me a replacement modem and I nearly lost my mind. It felt god to get my email back.
Anything that familiarizes the next generation with how to navigate around the basic workings of a computer is a good thing for a classroom. When I was student teaching, I had students type up one of their papers in the computer lab. Since I know a little about word processors, I could help them out with the basics, which usually required italicizing or underlining an expletive for added emphasis. When I was in school, that sort of instruction was called "cross-curriculum" teaching, meaning it encompassed both English and computers. It was put in the same category as pointing out the Mayan counting system in math class (math/history). Nowadays, we don't even notice that division between computers and writing a paper. Heck, we probably don't notice the division between computers and daily life anymore.
I see computers much the way that Richard Rodriguez sees the English language. I read Rodriguez's book, Hunger of Memory, for class. In it, Rodriguez says that it is impossible for people to succeed in America and take part in the American dream if they do not have a command of the English language. Rodriguez, for those who don't know, started speaking English in Elementary school and is an opponent to bilingual education. It's funny, because I always thought that opponents to bilingual education were racists (conservatives). But, it's hard to argue with Rodriguez. How many businesses in America are run by people who don't speak English? How many congressmen, CEOs or Doctors? Not speaking English, as pointed out by Rodriguez, is a definite handicap in America.
Like I said, this is the same way I view the internet. I've said it in class, but I lost internet access for a week while the phone company sent me a replacement modem and I nearly lost my mind. It felt god to get my email back.
Anything that familiarizes the next generation with how to navigate around the basic workings of a computer is a good thing for a classroom. When I was student teaching, I had students type up one of their papers in the computer lab. Since I know a little about word processors, I could help them out with the basics, which usually required italicizing or underlining an expletive for added emphasis. When I was in school, that sort of instruction was called "cross-curriculum" teaching, meaning it encompassed both English and computers. It was put in the same category as pointing out the Mayan counting system in math class (math/history). Nowadays, we don't even notice that division between computers and writing a paper. Heck, we probably don't notice the division between computers and daily life anymore.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Letters from Students
So far, we have read two letters from students to teachers. On was presented last week as a persuasive letter to change a grade which had yet to be determined, and the other is described by David Bartholomae in "The Tidy House: Basic Writing in the American Curriculum" (LE-172). To me, they both represent a culture gap between the home and academic identities. This idea has been described in previous chapters. There is a definite difficulty in adjusting to college life. I've blogged about my views on the differences of college and home life before, so I won't go in to much detail. But, these two letters just show how difficult it is to adjust to being outside of the comfort (home) zone. One letter represents those who are actually trying to understand how this whole "academic thing" works, while the other represents a rejection of the entire academic system. Mina Shaughnessy hints that students reject writing because so many errors are pointed out to them. Errors are the same as failure, so they believe they are failures as writers and should stop doing something at which they consistently fail (7). Though the two letters are radically different, I wonder if both problems could be solved (or, at least lessened) by having a class which focuses on the differences in expectations and demeanor between home and academic life. Now, we all took the IDS 150 course, which showed us where the library was and how we should go see our football games. But, I like the idea that someone brought up in class about their instructor telling the students that they are now "scholars." It is okay to say an opinion as long as it is backed-up by texts and evidence. This would no doubt boost the confidence of students to nearly narcissistic (yes, misspelled) levels! I mean, the students are in an alien atmosphere, and it is difficult to understand that they have to think differently, now. They can't keep one foot at home and one foot in academia, their habits have to shift altogether. Some, as is evident in the letter we read in class last week, have trouble with the fact that they will have to learn things which will challenge their beliefs and values. Of course, at home, everyone you meet agrees with you, so it comes as quite a shock when people in academia present a differing view. In academics, this leads to academic discourse, where "academic discourse" could lead to a bar fight at home. But, that's life.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Spelling and Handwriting
Mina Shaughnessy might not have anticipated that parts of her book might become so outdated so quickly, but that seems to be the case with the "Handwriting" section and the "Spelling" portions of Errors and Expectations. With computers being in most homes across the country and most of those computers containing some sort of spell-checking device in their word processing program, the importance of these two chapters has shifted. I'm not saying that these two sections are no longer important, because the problems they seek to correct are not being corrected by computers and computer programs, they are simply taking the problem out of the hands of the teachers.
I recently got a new computer which automatically corrects words that are misspelled for me. I haven't liked it from the very beginning, since I like to know what words I've misspelled in order to learn how to properly spell them. I know that the process for me to turn off this function and just have the computer underline the offending text in squiggly red is a fairly simple one. But, I'm lazy, so the words I misspell are corrected right as I type. I continue making those mistakes in my spelling and I assume that every word I type is golden. I don't correct the problem, but my papers contain no spelling mistakes, allowing teachers to focus on my grammar, punctuation and argument rather than spelling and handwriting.
This is not to say that computers have covered up all of the problems Shaughnessy covers in her spelling chapters. Homophones (169) and certain instances of what she calls "failure to remember or see words" (172) will slide right under the radar of even the most astute spell-checking program.
My question, however, is that I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Like I said before, computers are not correcting the spelling errors, they are merely ceasing to make them a problem for the printed document. Those problems remain in the writing of the students so that a person with deplorable spelling can get by with ignoring the problem and go through life without knowing how to properly spell receive, annoiance or asimilation. I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I'd like to open this idea up to the class just to see what you all think.
I recently got a new computer which automatically corrects words that are misspelled for me. I haven't liked it from the very beginning, since I like to know what words I've misspelled in order to learn how to properly spell them. I know that the process for me to turn off this function and just have the computer underline the offending text in squiggly red is a fairly simple one. But, I'm lazy, so the words I misspell are corrected right as I type. I continue making those mistakes in my spelling and I assume that every word I type is golden. I don't correct the problem, but my papers contain no spelling mistakes, allowing teachers to focus on my grammar, punctuation and argument rather than spelling and handwriting.
This is not to say that computers have covered up all of the problems Shaughnessy covers in her spelling chapters. Homophones (169) and certain instances of what she calls "failure to remember or see words" (172) will slide right under the radar of even the most astute spell-checking program.
My question, however, is that I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Like I said before, computers are not correcting the spelling errors, they are merely ceasing to make them a problem for the printed document. Those problems remain in the writing of the students so that a person with deplorable spelling can get by with ignoring the problem and go through life without knowing how to properly spell receive, annoiance or asimilation. I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I'd like to open this idea up to the class just to see what you all think.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Constrictive College Classes
The focus in this batch of articles seems to be the loss of self in college society. It's unfortunate to have to deal with the dual nature of living both in the context of college and (for lack of a better term) real life. College teaches students how to think, but a lot of that has to do with how the professors think.
I keep running over the part in "Conflict and Struggle: The Enemies or Preconditions of Basic Writing?" where students look at the statue of Perseusholding the head of medusa. One student starts off a paper by saying, "When I see this statue it is of the white man and he is holding the head of the negro." (44) There are college professors on this campus who would read this first statement, skip to the end and write "no. rewrite." at the end. The reasoning behind that is, simply, because the professor had never thought of that possible interpretation before, so it must be incorrect.
I think that a big reason why "gate-keepers" were afraid to have open admissions at colleges is because they looked out at their classes and thought, "No. not like us." These students just don't think the way we do, nor do they value what we value.
The fact of the matter is that, after some time, college students can assume what certain professors are asking for when they assign a paper. The opinions of Foucault and Freud are more valued opinions than a student's own opinions of a work. It's my opinion that the gate-keepers might have looked out to their classes and thought to themselves, "there's no possible way I can teach these students how to think like I do." And, they left it at that. How could they deal with such a diversity of thought? I mean, college students mainly come from a middle-class family. They are hard workers and did well in school. Open admissions could disrupt that homogenous demographic.
Of course, teachers who were up to the challenge of finding a different opinion, or actively participating in a dialogue with students would get along quite well with the new breed of students introduced by open admissions.
I keep running over the part in "Conflict and Struggle: The Enemies or Preconditions of Basic Writing?" where students look at the statue of Perseusholding the head of medusa. One student starts off a paper by saying, "When I see this statue it is of the white man and he is holding the head of the negro." (44) There are college professors on this campus who would read this first statement, skip to the end and write "no. rewrite." at the end. The reasoning behind that is, simply, because the professor had never thought of that possible interpretation before, so it must be incorrect.
I think that a big reason why "gate-keepers" were afraid to have open admissions at colleges is because they looked out at their classes and thought, "No. not like us." These students just don't think the way we do, nor do they value what we value.
The fact of the matter is that, after some time, college students can assume what certain professors are asking for when they assign a paper. The opinions of Foucault and Freud are more valued opinions than a student's own opinions of a work. It's my opinion that the gate-keepers might have looked out to their classes and thought to themselves, "there's no possible way I can teach these students how to think like I do." And, they left it at that. How could they deal with such a diversity of thought? I mean, college students mainly come from a middle-class family. They are hard workers and did well in school. Open admissions could disrupt that homogenous demographic.
Of course, teachers who were up to the challenge of finding a different opinion, or actively participating in a dialogue with students would get along quite well with the new breed of students introduced by open admissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)