My summary/ responses for my presentation pieces tomorrow:
________________
Why the “Research Paper” Isn’t Working by Barbara Fister
Fister opens with the topic of collegiate subject
juggling—how students are expected to switch between the individualized
dialects of different subjects with ease and promptness (depending on their
class schedules). Teachers try to instill English-based skills (writing skills)
and overall skills students can use to navigate college; however, there are
still teachers (especially the mandatory comp teachers) are out of touch with
students. They pick topics, sources and formats that are irrelevant to the
student, which causes them not to disassociate from the assignment. Fister
brings up a point about citing and sourcing—the meticulous process of creating
a works cited page detracts from the information that source provides and the
ideas that information might instill in students. Essentially that we’re killing
intellectual discussion and creativity for the sake of correctness and procedure.
Instead it is suggested that citation correctness should be taught at the end
of academia, when students will begin writing actual research papers (what
Fister calls “truly academic”) and integrating more meaningful sources. The
issue with sourcing for research papers is that students are often unable to
grasp the material in the first place, let alone summarize, use and cite it
while trying to make it fit in with their own work. The research paper is
smothering students with rules, when in “extracurricular writing” they excel
due to the elimination of restrictions. The hardest part of research writing is
interpreting and understanding the information. Fister ends with the suggestion
that the research paper is an ineffective teaching tool and should be replaced
with a more interactive system. She states that picking a topic of interest and
developing skills from there is more likely to result in better researchers (as
opposed to just better research papers).
This piece was interesting, and I felt that most of it was
agreeable. Especially the section about the works cited pages. One section, in
particular, stood out to me: “The first year
“research paper” has always sent a mixed message. You’re supposed to be
original, but must quote someone else to back up every point you make - while
in constant fear that you’ll be accused of stealing from them.” This is so very
true, at least for me. I am neurotic about my citations, completely paranoid
that even the smallest mis-citation will result in my expulsion. I have always
carried that fear with me. So this section I really enjoyed. Having that dear
acknowledged, and for once not belittled, was nice. Also, is the idea of not
being able to integrate your own ideas. That, to me is very sad and
unfortunately very true. It’s as if administrators or even professors can’t
conceive that students could know anything about a topic without sitting down
to research it.
The Popularity of Formulaic
Writing (and Why We Need to Resist) by Mark Wiley
Wiley begins by stating that
high school teachers are often at a loss as far as writing goes. Many schools
are underfunded, understaffed and (generally) the teachers are undereducated in
effective ways to teach writing. The
formulaic writing system (namely, the 5 paragraph essay, form what I
understand) has become a crutch for teachers instead of a tool. The
expectations placed on teachers to instruct an overabundance of students, while
simultaneously squeezing in standardized test practice, essentially forces
teachers into a corner where they have no other choice but to follow this
formula, without any hope of deviation. However, Wiley argues that it is not
the formula that is the problem, but the dependency (“pedagogical blindness”)
that teachers have on it. The formula is good in that it is easy to understand
and easy to teach, but there is no explanation outside of the initial lesson,
and so students begin to think that the formula is an unbreakable law. Instead
of the standard formula, Wiley discusses the Jane Schaffer Approach, which is significantly
more detailed. Teachers like this method because it is easy to implement,
ensures school-wide consistency, expedites the grading process and facilitates
student-teacher communication. Furthermore, the mandatory commentary sentences
help students differentiate between facts and their own ideas and how
discussing facts after presenting them increases the strength of the overall
paper. The biggest advantage to Schaffer’s system is that writing as a process
becomes more manageable and therefore “accessible to everyone.” Criticism
includes “uninformed writers” thinking this is what writing “really is” and
formulaic dependency. Also is the issue of genre variety, which the Schaffer
method overlooks and oversimplifies as far as writing tasks go. Wiley concludes
with the use of formulaic writing in moderation and with consideration to genre.
Overall, I liked this method.
I especially liked the condition that 11th graders should be taught
to move away from the formula. I, too, would probably become bored by this
format, had it been taught to me. I was interested in the “fear” that students
would lose the motivation to shape their own papers; however, I am included to
disagree with this fear. For one, writing isn’t for everyone; for students who
won’t need writing as much or for those who cannot shape a paper at all,
this one, very reliable method will really help them (“accessible to
everyone”). For another, I feel it is a teacher’s job to help with this; if the
formula is capped at 10th grade, then students should learn in their
upper-classes about individualization (which combats the criticism that
uninformed writers will not know what “writing
really is”). Finally, I don’t think students can effectively shape their own
papers if they don’t have a basic understanding of what an essay “shape” looks
like. As far as the “next” step goes, the only thing left to do is to teach
deviations: paragraphs that only have one concrete idea that needs more than
two commentary sentences, one commentary sentence that has the strength of two,
mixing up the order of concrete and commentary sentences. Wondering “what’s
next?” shows that teachers are again formulaic writing as a crutch instead of a
springboard. I agree that, in comparison to the flexibility of traditional
essays, Schaffer essays are extremely limited; however, context is too influential
to discard through comparisons. The phrase “real writers” and “real writing” is
belittling to those writers who are in the process of learning. This essay is
talking about students in high school, not collegiates about to graduate. All
writers began with the basics and the basics as of right now are (primarily)
grammar lessons and the 5-paragraph essay that is helpful to a degree, but
still immensely vague. This is a good structured system that students can
easily model that won’t stunt their developing skills or style. And that’s not
even mentioning how hard it really is
to teach students citation analysis. As a tutor, I can say this is an
especially difficult concept to teach someone. Most beginning level writers
don’t understand why they need to talk about a source/quote when it’s already
been put in their paper. So the mandatory 3 commentary sentences can really
help them fine-tune this ability. Which they will really need in college, where
they will be expected to write more than just two sentences about a source. Not
to mention “commentary” can be anything, and therefore is less limiting than
the criticism would allow.
No comments:
Post a Comment