Peer Tutoring and the “Conversation of Mankind”
According to Kenneth A. Bruffee, knowledge is the product of the “conversation of mankind.” Conversation is derived from our thoughts, which is an inward experience. Thoughts surface, not only in spoken or body language, but in written language. The goal of peer tutoring is to help those thoughts come to fruition in written language.
Bruffee begins by discussing reflective thought. Reflective thought is “organically related to social conversation” because thought stems from conversation. Bruffee illustrates the example that humans do not necessarily have to verbalize the need to dial a phone number or walk to the coffee maker. Although thought is indeed an inward experience, it is essential to conversation and social interaction.
It is also essential for writing tutors to help students by engaging in conversation in order to help those thoughts materialize in written language. Peer tutoring is considered a “normal discourse,” which refers to an ongoing conversation “within a community of knowledgeable peers.” Peer tutoring is that among individuals of equal status. This allows an opportunity for collaboration, a discussion and exchange of thoughts and beliefs, essential for the growth of knowledge.
One might disagree by stating that this opportunity is nothing more than the “blind leading the blind.” However, this collaboration is a chance for the tutor and tutee to work together by “pooling their resources.” The information that one has, but the other may lack, is what fuels the thoughts that begin the conversation that lead to knowledge. So, peer tutoring is not an occasion to engage in proofreading or editing, but rather to engage in conversation about the subject of interest.
Peer tutoring is the “extension” of the “conversation of mankind.” Bruffee points out that the study of the humanities paves the way for this for this sort of social collaboration, such as in writing. Writing tutors have the unique opportunity to take part in this conversation.
What I think...
I think I want to study this more! I am trying to decide what to write my 595 paper on, and this is similar to what I have been thinking about. The connection between thought and written language, and how this becomes a social interaction through conversation, is fascinating.
I took a language acquisition course during my undergraduate studies, and encountered theories similar to this. We studied how language evolves in social interaction and in written language. I agree with Bruffee’s argument, but I would like to look into it more so I can make my own argument.
I would like to know if Bruffee believes if knowledge is only attainable through social interaction and conversation. Or, do we have to have that interaction? But, when I think of examples of self-education I always seem to see that there was some sort of conversation that took place that paved the way for knowledge.
I think that conversation encourages self-education, and written language is a product of this.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
"Sh*t-plus," "AWK," "Frag," and "Huh?": An Empirical Look at a Writing Program's Commenting Practices”
This video is about a study concerning teacher’s comments on papers that was administered at California State University – Fresno. The purpose of this video is to present students’ concerns about the remarks they receive on papers, and how this affects their writing process.
First Segment
The first segment of the video brings several issues to the surface. For example, the comments professors or instructors leave for their students may contain unclear wording and often students are baffled and find themselves going to the professor for clearer explanation. According to this study:
-“19.96% of all comments were written as fragments.”
Also, students feel compelled to revise when the professor suggests doing so. Most of the students in this study are under the impression that they must satisfy their professors. In this process, students may lose their own message in their paper, and cater to that of their professor.
There is also a section that questions the importance of peer comments versus teacher comments. Some of the students found that teacher comments were more helpful, while others found that peer comments were very helpful and less bias.
The concern over race and gender is also questioned in this video. One student felt that cultural issues play an important role. For instance, a student might focus in on idea that is of importance to him or her, which may create a clash between the student and the professor depending on what the professor deems as important. Among the ones interviewed:
-“72.5 of commenters in this study were white.”
Second Segment
The second segment covers a couple of different topics. Grammar versus main idea is the first topic that is mentioned. The students interviewed expressed that they would rather receive more of a focus on the purpose of their paper than on grammar. Grammar is important, but the students that were asked in this video wanted help in the overall purpose of their paper. This study reflects that:
-“Only 6.89% of all comments were idea/revision based.”
- “3.37% of all comments were directed toward specific ideas.”
The color of ink an instructor uses while making corrections sends a message as well. Only one student mentioned that he liked the red ink because it stood out, while others were opposed to it because it’s “alarming.”
What I think…
Just out of curiosity, I would like to know how many people were interviewed. This is a little unclear…
Overall, I think the video is very insightful. I agree that some professors (not all) leave very brief comments that leave students confused and discouraged. I also believe that there are professors who may not actually agree with the message that the student is trying to make, and this reflects in their grade. I had an English professor who told our class: “I don’t have to agree with your paper in order to like it.” What this particular professor was looking for was a good argument, whether she agreed or not. I like that!!
This video is about a study concerning teacher’s comments on papers that was administered at California State University – Fresno. The purpose of this video is to present students’ concerns about the remarks they receive on papers, and how this affects their writing process.
First Segment
The first segment of the video brings several issues to the surface. For example, the comments professors or instructors leave for their students may contain unclear wording and often students are baffled and find themselves going to the professor for clearer explanation. According to this study:
-“19.96% of all comments were written as fragments.”
Also, students feel compelled to revise when the professor suggests doing so. Most of the students in this study are under the impression that they must satisfy their professors. In this process, students may lose their own message in their paper, and cater to that of their professor.
There is also a section that questions the importance of peer comments versus teacher comments. Some of the students found that teacher comments were more helpful, while others found that peer comments were very helpful and less bias.
The concern over race and gender is also questioned in this video. One student felt that cultural issues play an important role. For instance, a student might focus in on idea that is of importance to him or her, which may create a clash between the student and the professor depending on what the professor deems as important. Among the ones interviewed:
-“72.5 of commenters in this study were white.”
Second Segment
The second segment covers a couple of different topics. Grammar versus main idea is the first topic that is mentioned. The students interviewed expressed that they would rather receive more of a focus on the purpose of their paper than on grammar. Grammar is important, but the students that were asked in this video wanted help in the overall purpose of their paper. This study reflects that:
-“Only 6.89% of all comments were idea/revision based.”
- “3.37% of all comments were directed toward specific ideas.”
The color of ink an instructor uses while making corrections sends a message as well. Only one student mentioned that he liked the red ink because it stood out, while others were opposed to it because it’s “alarming.”
What I think…
Just out of curiosity, I would like to know how many people were interviewed. This is a little unclear…
Overall, I think the video is very insightful. I agree that some professors (not all) leave very brief comments that leave students confused and discouraged. I also believe that there are professors who may not actually agree with the message that the student is trying to make, and this reflects in their grade. I had an English professor who told our class: “I don’t have to agree with your paper in order to like it.” What this particular professor was looking for was a good argument, whether she agreed or not. I like that!!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
How Writing is Related to Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is a process in which an opinion or resolution is formed from viewing a problem or issue from various perspectives through study, research, and careful observation. A process such as this is usually not promoted in public schools through the traditional writing process, and students enter the higher education environment unprepared for the writing experience. From this realization, a movement known as the writing-across-the-curriculum movement has been formed to encourage writing through a critical thinking process. In Engaging Ideas, John Bean states:
The writing-across-the-curriculum movement. . . is largely a reaction against
traditional writing instruction that associates good writing primarily with
grammatical accuracy and correctness, and thus isolates writing instruction
within English departments, the home of the grammar experts. The problem with
traditional writing instruction is that it leads to a view of writing as a set of
isolated skills unconnected to an authentic desire to converse with interested
readers about real ideas (15).
Another View: Metaphors for Writing in French Versus English
Writing does not necessarily have to be a clear step-by-step format. According to the French, the rough draft is considered the brouillon, metaphorically speaking “to place in disorder, to scramble (16). Writing, as opposed to the traditional format, is not a structured approach; thus, the writing process starts out as “a journey into disorder, a making of chaos” (16).
Writing, Thinking, and a Dialogic View of Knowledge
Most students who enter into college possess the dualistic viewpoint. According to the dualists, there is a set of right and wrong answers, and we are just “empty buckets being filled with data by their professors” (18). The idea of looking at both sides of a situation is an unknown process to students, especially in the dualistic mindset. Students enter a road block due to the fact that there are those taught not to take sides. The thinking skills required in critical thinking can be very much of a struggle; therefore, conjuring up a thesis out of “disorder” is a daunting experience.
Avoiding a Thesis: Three Cognitively Immature Essay Structures
Bean presents certain structures that appear among new writers. There is the “And Then”, “All About”, and “Data Dump Writing.” Each structure lacks an incoherent message and lack of critical thinking skills. The “And Then” structure is a chronological structure students resort to that does not offer a solution, but rather a summary. “All About” appears to be well organized and thoroughly because of all the bits of information included, but once again, not a clear argument. “Data Dumping Writing” has no structure or direction at all, but is more like a paper created out of frustration.
What Causes These Organizational Problems?
Are these students products of poor instruction, or are they just not ready for academic writing? Psychologist, Jean Piaget, leans to the idea that they are “concrete operational reasoners” (24), focusing on information; although, this way of thinking can be turned around with the right kind of training and the environment (like my historiography class). Data and information obtained is eventually turned into arguments and presents a message the student is trying to get across.
Implications of These Theories for Teachers
As Bean states about one of his colleague’s lessons “My colleague’s goal is to help students see the difference between history as on damn thing after another and history as a complex interplay between data and interpretation” (28). Allowing time for classroom writing or discussions will enhance the students’ learning experience. It has been believed that this may take away from the time allotted to teach content, but in reality the students will be more prepared to digest and make new connections between data that is presented to them.
Teaching thinking Through Teaching Revision
The goal is to go from the Positivist model of writing to the Composing process. The positivist model includes:
1) Choose a topic.
2) Narrow it.
3) Write a thesis.
4) Make an outline.
5) Write a draft.
6) Revise
7) Edit
(29-30)
The composing process includes:
1) Starting point: perception of a problem.
2) Exploration
3) Incubation
4) Writing the first draft.
5) Reformulation or revision
6) Editing
(30-31)
I think it is interesting that the thesis is mentioned in number four of the composing process, along with reformulation or revision. The argument may change through the process of research, and looking at the issue through multiple perspectives.
My Conclusion…
I’m happy I chose this chapter because it goes along with what I said at our last class meeting concerning my experience in the historiography class. This program puts the students in the critical thinking mode and in the “journey into disorder, a making of chaos” (16). We researched a topic (problem or issue) of our interest, and spent the semester backing our claims. There was not a particular structure or outline, but rather we were given the opportunity to research information so we can form our own ideas. Although the process was quite rigorous, it ended up being very fulfilling because I was able to develop my own claim and defend it. Students entering into college have rarely been given this opportunity!! Toward the end of the semester my professor, Dr. Judy Ford, shared with us that “the one important skill you should obtain while in college is that of critical thinking, if you didn’t get this then we didn’t do our job.” So true!!
Critical thinking is a process in which an opinion or resolution is formed from viewing a problem or issue from various perspectives through study, research, and careful observation. A process such as this is usually not promoted in public schools through the traditional writing process, and students enter the higher education environment unprepared for the writing experience. From this realization, a movement known as the writing-across-the-curriculum movement has been formed to encourage writing through a critical thinking process. In Engaging Ideas, John Bean states:
The writing-across-the-curriculum movement. . . is largely a reaction against
traditional writing instruction that associates good writing primarily with
grammatical accuracy and correctness, and thus isolates writing instruction
within English departments, the home of the grammar experts. The problem with
traditional writing instruction is that it leads to a view of writing as a set of
isolated skills unconnected to an authentic desire to converse with interested
readers about real ideas (15).
Another View: Metaphors for Writing in French Versus English
Writing does not necessarily have to be a clear step-by-step format. According to the French, the rough draft is considered the brouillon, metaphorically speaking “to place in disorder, to scramble (16). Writing, as opposed to the traditional format, is not a structured approach; thus, the writing process starts out as “a journey into disorder, a making of chaos” (16).
Writing, Thinking, and a Dialogic View of Knowledge
Most students who enter into college possess the dualistic viewpoint. According to the dualists, there is a set of right and wrong answers, and we are just “empty buckets being filled with data by their professors” (18). The idea of looking at both sides of a situation is an unknown process to students, especially in the dualistic mindset. Students enter a road block due to the fact that there are those taught not to take sides. The thinking skills required in critical thinking can be very much of a struggle; therefore, conjuring up a thesis out of “disorder” is a daunting experience.
Avoiding a Thesis: Three Cognitively Immature Essay Structures
Bean presents certain structures that appear among new writers. There is the “And Then”, “All About”, and “Data Dump Writing.” Each structure lacks an incoherent message and lack of critical thinking skills. The “And Then” structure is a chronological structure students resort to that does not offer a solution, but rather a summary. “All About” appears to be well organized and thoroughly because of all the bits of information included, but once again, not a clear argument. “Data Dumping Writing” has no structure or direction at all, but is more like a paper created out of frustration.
What Causes These Organizational Problems?
Are these students products of poor instruction, or are they just not ready for academic writing? Psychologist, Jean Piaget, leans to the idea that they are “concrete operational reasoners” (24), focusing on information; although, this way of thinking can be turned around with the right kind of training and the environment (like my historiography class). Data and information obtained is eventually turned into arguments and presents a message the student is trying to get across.
Implications of These Theories for Teachers
As Bean states about one of his colleague’s lessons “My colleague’s goal is to help students see the difference between history as on damn thing after another and history as a complex interplay between data and interpretation” (28). Allowing time for classroom writing or discussions will enhance the students’ learning experience. It has been believed that this may take away from the time allotted to teach content, but in reality the students will be more prepared to digest and make new connections between data that is presented to them.
Teaching thinking Through Teaching Revision
The goal is to go from the Positivist model of writing to the Composing process. The positivist model includes:
1) Choose a topic.
2) Narrow it.
3) Write a thesis.
4) Make an outline.
5) Write a draft.
6) Revise
7) Edit
(29-30)
The composing process includes:
1) Starting point: perception of a problem.
2) Exploration
3) Incubation
4) Writing the first draft.
5) Reformulation or revision
6) Editing
(30-31)
I think it is interesting that the thesis is mentioned in number four of the composing process, along with reformulation or revision. The argument may change through the process of research, and looking at the issue through multiple perspectives.
My Conclusion…
I’m happy I chose this chapter because it goes along with what I said at our last class meeting concerning my experience in the historiography class. This program puts the students in the critical thinking mode and in the “journey into disorder, a making of chaos” (16). We researched a topic (problem or issue) of our interest, and spent the semester backing our claims. There was not a particular structure or outline, but rather we were given the opportunity to research information so we can form our own ideas. Although the process was quite rigorous, it ended up being very fulfilling because I was able to develop my own claim and defend it. Students entering into college have rarely been given this opportunity!! Toward the end of the semester my professor, Dr. Judy Ford, shared with us that “the one important skill you should obtain while in college is that of critical thinking, if you didn’t get this then we didn’t do our job.” So true!!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
This chapter focuses on “Literacy and Mind.” Linquist and Seitz present various viewpoints on the “effects” of literacy. The chapter opens with a dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus, and then goes on to show other stances individuals and society as a whole have taken on the issue of literacy. I will describe these positions below:
Socrates: Not Good for the Memory…
Socrates and his student, Phaedrus, discuss that poor memory skills would be repercussion of relying on written language. Socrates expresses his concern that written language will “create forgetfulness,” and people will no longer depend on their memories. Socrates preferred the oral means of communication, as opposed to written. Phaedrus suggest that the “living word” (oral) possess knowledge and has a soul, and the “written word” is merely an “image.” According to Socrates, the effects would be dangerous; written words would never be able to match with the liveliness of oral communication.
Movies: Literacy Changes the Person…
The characters in the movies Stanley and Iris and Born Yesterday receive “literacy makeovers.” Literacy transforms these characters from dirty to clean, social outcast to fully functional citizen, incompetent to competent, and irresponsibility to responsibility. Literacy alone is responsible for these dramatic makeovers. Literacy enables a person to participate in society - a civilized society. Illiterate individuals live in the boundaries of society, and are misfits. The inward intellectual change surfaces to the outer appearance, and people, therefore, become productive citizens.
Increased Intelligence: Cunningham, Stanovich, and The Great Divide…
Anne Cunningham and Keith Stanovich co-wrote, “Reading Can Make You Smarter,” in which the two explain cognitive consequences of literacy. By relying on research from historians, philosophers, and anthropologists, Cunningham and Stanovich assert that literate societies have progressed faster and more efficiently than illiterate societies. Literate individuals possess rationality and critical thinking skills; hence, a Great Divide emerges from primitive to civilized societies. Supporters of the Great Divide believe that literate societies are more humane and civilized than illiterate societies. Walter J. Ong believes that literacy has, “transformed human consciousness.” This particular outlook fuels ambition to spread literacy. It now becomes “a moral issue.” Ong also debunks Socrates outlook on written language. He asserts that written language actually aids in the memory process. The mind is limited, and therefore written language is imperative in the preservation of memories. Also, Ong expresses there is too much dependency on someone else’s story telling in societies that possess only orality. Ong believes this might interfere with ones judgment, and the opportunity to think on his or her own.
Vai People: Literacy Research in Africa…
There are scholars who feel The Great Divide is, “ethnocentric and elitist.” To say that illiterate societies are less human and uncivilized is a rash judgment. Illiterate societies have been associated with disease and immorality; these accusations are unfair. Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole travel to Liberian Vai to observe how literacy is learned in this culture. The Vai use an indigenous Vai syllabary that is past down through the generations, Arabic literacy for religious education, and English for government purposes. A third of the Vai population is literate in one of these three ways. Scribner and Cole conclude through observation that The Great Divide “was incorrect, or at least too ambitious in its claims.” They conclude that written language did not promote “logic,” but rather “Western” schooling that aided in the process of logical thought.
What I think….
Nation by Terry Pratchett came to my mind while reading this chapter. A young girl is stranded on an island with a boy who would be considered a savage by her country’s standards. However, she notices how gentle and humane this boy is while burying his people. She also remembers how cruel her uncle was while killing animals for fun, and laughing in the process. Her uncle was literate, and the boy was illiterate.
Literacy is powerful, but is not an indicator of how moral and civilized someone is. Also, the focus on outer appearance is not something that magically happens after a person becomes literate. I find this outlook disturbing.
Another thing that disturbs me is the NCLB, which is actually leaving children behind. The Great Divide and the NCLB are very similar. The NCLB, which is discussed in Chapter 1, is keeping The Great Divide intact by punishing lower performing schools, and rewarding higher performing schools. The lower performing school ought to be receiving more government funding. This is very disturbing, and an apartheid education is emerging from this.
Socrates: Not Good for the Memory…
Socrates and his student, Phaedrus, discuss that poor memory skills would be repercussion of relying on written language. Socrates expresses his concern that written language will “create forgetfulness,” and people will no longer depend on their memories. Socrates preferred the oral means of communication, as opposed to written. Phaedrus suggest that the “living word” (oral) possess knowledge and has a soul, and the “written word” is merely an “image.” According to Socrates, the effects would be dangerous; written words would never be able to match with the liveliness of oral communication.
Movies: Literacy Changes the Person…
The characters in the movies Stanley and Iris and Born Yesterday receive “literacy makeovers.” Literacy transforms these characters from dirty to clean, social outcast to fully functional citizen, incompetent to competent, and irresponsibility to responsibility. Literacy alone is responsible for these dramatic makeovers. Literacy enables a person to participate in society - a civilized society. Illiterate individuals live in the boundaries of society, and are misfits. The inward intellectual change surfaces to the outer appearance, and people, therefore, become productive citizens.
Increased Intelligence: Cunningham, Stanovich, and The Great Divide…
Anne Cunningham and Keith Stanovich co-wrote, “Reading Can Make You Smarter,” in which the two explain cognitive consequences of literacy. By relying on research from historians, philosophers, and anthropologists, Cunningham and Stanovich assert that literate societies have progressed faster and more efficiently than illiterate societies. Literate individuals possess rationality and critical thinking skills; hence, a Great Divide emerges from primitive to civilized societies. Supporters of the Great Divide believe that literate societies are more humane and civilized than illiterate societies. Walter J. Ong believes that literacy has, “transformed human consciousness.” This particular outlook fuels ambition to spread literacy. It now becomes “a moral issue.” Ong also debunks Socrates outlook on written language. He asserts that written language actually aids in the memory process. The mind is limited, and therefore written language is imperative in the preservation of memories. Also, Ong expresses there is too much dependency on someone else’s story telling in societies that possess only orality. Ong believes this might interfere with ones judgment, and the opportunity to think on his or her own.
Vai People: Literacy Research in Africa…
There are scholars who feel The Great Divide is, “ethnocentric and elitist.” To say that illiterate societies are less human and uncivilized is a rash judgment. Illiterate societies have been associated with disease and immorality; these accusations are unfair. Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole travel to Liberian Vai to observe how literacy is learned in this culture. The Vai use an indigenous Vai syllabary that is past down through the generations, Arabic literacy for religious education, and English for government purposes. A third of the Vai population is literate in one of these three ways. Scribner and Cole conclude through observation that The Great Divide “was incorrect, or at least too ambitious in its claims.” They conclude that written language did not promote “logic,” but rather “Western” schooling that aided in the process of logical thought.
What I think….
Nation by Terry Pratchett came to my mind while reading this chapter. A young girl is stranded on an island with a boy who would be considered a savage by her country’s standards. However, she notices how gentle and humane this boy is while burying his people. She also remembers how cruel her uncle was while killing animals for fun, and laughing in the process. Her uncle was literate, and the boy was illiterate.
Literacy is powerful, but is not an indicator of how moral and civilized someone is. Also, the focus on outer appearance is not something that magically happens after a person becomes literate. I find this outlook disturbing.
Another thing that disturbs me is the NCLB, which is actually leaving children behind. The Great Divide and the NCLB are very similar. The NCLB, which is discussed in Chapter 1, is keeping The Great Divide intact by punishing lower performing schools, and rewarding higher performing schools. The lower performing school ought to be receiving more government funding. This is very disturbing, and an apartheid education is emerging from this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)