Summary of a Cmap

I created a CMap about blogging and composition. This is my first draft. Would love to hear any comments.

This is an executive summary for a CMap that outlines the focus question: How are composition and blogging practices connected? The CMap is informed by my pilot study conducted in spring 2006, recent articles on blogging, and seminal readings in composition.

Blogs share similar characteristics to journals as outlined in Fulwiler’s (1987) The Journal Book. He cites Britton (1975) when he compares journals to “speech written down,” and he notes five language features of journals: colloquial diction, first person pronouns, informal punctuation, rhythms of everyday speech, and experimentation. (p. 2-3). He outlines five cognitive activities of journal writing: observations, questions, speculation, self-awareness, digression, synthesis, revision, information (p. 3). Fulwiler outlines four formal features of journals: frequent entries, long entries, self-sponsored entries, and chronology of entries (p. 3) He also outlines a pedagogy for using journals including journals usefulness as a place to articulate connections (Bruner), think through ideas through different types of language (speaking, listening, reading, speaking) (Vygotsky); writing to learn and understanding ideas better (Emig); and collect ideas that writers care about (Moffett) (p. 5-6). In Fulwiler’s “Guidelines for Assigning Journals,” he describes journals as “neither ‘diaries’ nor ‘class notebooks’ but borrow[ing] features from each: like the diary, journals are written in the first person about issues the writer cares about; like the class notebook, journals are concerned with the content of a particular course” (p. 7).

In the same book, Berthoff describes dialectical journals, dual entry journals with notes, impressions, and quotations on one side, and notes about the notes, or “meta-comments,” on the facing column. Kist (2004) in his describes the New Literacy classroom as a place for students to engage in “ongoing metadialogues as they think through problems and create products in an atmosphere recognizing cognitive pluralism.” More recent articles focusing on educational blogging connect journal writing and blogging (Fernheimer & Nelson, 2005; Kajaer & Bull, 2004; Downes, 2004). Downes (2004) explains that blogs are more than a personal journal, adding to the diary form with the ability to hyperlink and the writer’s sense of style reflected through the types of links chosen to share with readers. He calls this “personal publishing” (p. 18).

Blogs have characteristics of expressive and transactional writing. Britton ( 1975) describes transactional writing:

writing to get things done: to inform people (telling them what they need or want to know or what we think they ought to know), to advise or persuade or instruct people. Thus the transactional is used for example to record facts, exchange opinions, explain and explore ideas, construct theories; to transact business; conduct campaigns; change public opinions. (p. 88).

Britton describes expressive language in writing as “thinking aloud on paper”; a “diary entry that attempts to record and explore the writer’s feelings, mood, opinions, preoccupations of the moment”; and “personal letters to friends . . . “ (p. 89). Also, blogs would allow for what Kist calls, multiple forms of representation (2000). A blog post could be linked to an audio file or a graph.

Blogs increase fluency and the ability to generate ideas quickly and connect reading to writing. Elbow (1989) writes, “When I write responses to papers by colleagues or students, I don’t freewrite strictly (never pausing), but I sort-of-freewrite” (p. 123). Using Elbow’s ideas of freewriting and movies of the mind assist student writers’ ability to respond to and to generate ideas quickly. Blogging isn’t strictly “freewriting.” Even Elbow pauses as he “freewrites” responses, and for blogging, it is important to write more publicly with an audience in mind to correct minor errors in punctuation and grammar. So, in a sense, it is much more reader-based prose (Flower & Hayes, ).

Blogs are a social tool (Vygotsky) with the potential to create collaborative communities (Bruffee). Readers comment, and thus, build knowledge on the subject. Readers and writers work together to add to knowledge (Knobel & Lankshear, 2003). The group of bloggers become a community of practice (Lave & Wenger). The collaboration is not only student to student, but teacher to student, where the relationship changes to a “cognitive apprenticeship” (qtd. in Kist, 2000). Kist (2000) relies heavily on John-Steiner, who studied the cognition of famous thinkers, when he describes how new literacy classrooms include both individual and collaborative activities.

Blogs democratize classrooms because they don’t depend on the teacher transmission of knowledge to students (Friere, ). Although teachers have to fight against students’ dependence on traditional pedagogy (hooks ) where failure isn’t and option, and where students who use writing to explore aren’t supported. Blogs create have a democratizing effect for those students who may be quiet in face-to-face conversations and classroom discussions (Downes, 2004). Writing and conversational space are equalized on a blog.

Blogs allow writers to experience an authentic audience. Moffett (1968) writes, “Ideally, a student would write because he was intent on saying something for real reasons of his own and because he wanted to get certain effects on a definite audience. He would write only authentic kinds of discourse such as exist outside of school [my italics]l. A maximum amount of feedback would be provided him in the form of audience response” (p. 193). Britton (1975) explains that the only audience a teacher typically writes for is the teacher (p. 128).

Blogs support critical thinking and connections through linking. When bloggers link their thinking to other websites or blogs that they have read, they are participating in a more authentic research process than allowed for in a traditional research paper. Blood compares filter blogs as “research note cards” that show the connection of knowledge in a visual manner.

“Standing on the Shoulders of Giants” by Jensen

Jensen in an article for Language Arts (March 2002) “names names” in the teaching of writing, and many of these names are the first that may come to mind. She mentions work and research by Moffett, Graves, Hunt, Britton, Hillocks, Macrorie, Elbow, Murray, Kinneavy, Calkins, Gray, Strunk and White, and Emig. She also mentions others that are not as familiar. The article focuses on a few teachers who don’t speak at the yearly NCTE or IRA conference and who did teacher research before it was called that. Those teachers who wrote about teaching writing in their classroom include Sylvia Ashton Warner, Natalie Robinson Cole, Julia Weber Gordon, and Alvyna Treut Burrows. Jensen outlines a more extensive history of these four teacher researchers. Ashton Warner is a more common name, especially for those in elementary education. Ashton Warner wrote twelve books, most famous of those being Teacher (1963). She, early on, recognized what Piaget wrote about, that the most critical interaction is that between peers. She writes, “They are teaching each other, far more effectively than I could teach them myself” (qtd. in Jensen, p. 359). Robinson Cole, in The Arts in the Classroom (1940), writes “no tedious correcting-grammar-and-punctuation ordeal” (qtd. in Jensen, p. 359). According to Jensen, “Cole carefully preserved an emphasis on expression: ‘The writing must come as best it could and be accepted on its own merit for the thought, the feeling, the life force, the creative personal touch that is contained’” (qtd. in Jensen, p. 359). This idea is a goal of today’s writing workshop. Jensen outlines the main ideas that each writer focuses on. Jensen says to “think of Natalie Cole when you read about these topics:

· the challenges of teaching children from backgrounds unlike one’s own different priorities at different stages of the writing process

· the way publishing can give writing a purpose

· the value of peer coaching

· the importance of writing from one’s own experience

· writing, reading, talk, and life as being inseparable” (Jensen, p. 360).

Jensen writes about what Weber Gordon, author of My Country School Diary: An Adventure in Creative Teaching (1946), had students do in her class:

· “Made notebooks in which they stored their writing, as well as keeping records of problems and accomplishment and of books they had read

· Produced three issues of a multipage newspaper each year, and as a spin-off from their newspaper work wrote an elaborate, multichapter book that they presented to the county library

· wrote scripts and dramatized them

· created a post office and wrote letters in order to report, inquire, thank, invite, seek permission, and make plans

· Raised questions constantly and pursued answers: ‘Purpose,’ Gordon wrote, ‘is at the heart of a wholesome learning experience’ (p. 163). She continued, ‘It is no hardship for these children to learn to write. They have a purpose for writing’” (p. 212).

Jensen lists the following topics that Treut Burrows treats in her book They All Want to Write: Written English in the Elementary School (1939):

· “how teacher researchers function

· the need to experiment and to fumble as a writer

· writing conferences and writing folders

· a multistage writing process and writing workshop

· opportunities for children to hear, see, and talk about each other’s work

· the importance of literature in a writing program

· print-rich classrooms

· concrete experiences that give writing practical value

· mini-lesson” (qtd. in Jensen, p. 361).

I liked this article because it is a very good overview and introduction to some names in the teaching of writing or literacy that we may not be familiar with.

“What I’ve Learned from Teachers of Writing” by Graves

“What I’ve Learned from Teachers of Writing” by Graves

Donald Graves’ recent article for Language Arts (November 2004) outlines the fundamentals of

teaching writing in a workshop: students choose their own topics, writers receive regular responses from an

audience, i.e. teachers and fellow students, students write a minimum of three days a week, students

attempt to publish their work in some manner, teachers share expertise through modeling and think-aloud,

and students create a collection of their work (p. 91).

The article outlines people who impacted this thinking.

Calkins: He explains some important history. He thanks Lucy Calkins for “developing the concept of mini-lessons” (89). Mini-lessons took the strain off teachers who only talked about writing with one to one conferences.

Atwell: “raised our expectations of what middle school students can do”—he also said that Calkins and Atwell shared their own literacy, and that’s something I wrote about when I thought of Atwell. She really does spend a lot of valuable time in her book describing her own literacy and sharing that with students, and I think that’s what made her book different.

Frank Smith: “every act of writing is a convention”—from Graves’ description it makes me think that Wilhelm took generously of Smith’s ideas. Graves said that his ideas helped teachers to track students progression through the learning of these conventions. For example, as students get older, they will understand more and more conventions.

As he talks about these other writers, he also looks back on his own research and thinking processes.

Tom Romano and Camille Allen: books on multigenre

He said people tried to regulate the writing process by making it five-step or seven-step, and because of that he abandoned the term “writing process” in terms of just “writing.”

He said another issue came up that students “must” revise. He said that students need to practice re-reading their work critically.

Linda Rief: study in the 80s with her class, where she had them evaluate their own work and the work of others. With practice, students did better with evaluating work, and their evaluations matched closely how teachers evaluated the same work.

He shares three statements to shorten writing conferences: 1) this is what my piece is about; 2) this is where I am in the draft; 3) this is what will happen next, I’m writing next, or I need help with.

These sentences did help to focus writing conferences when I have little time.

First-rate teachers have the following characteristics:

1. highly literate
2. intensely interested in students
3. students have a primary place in the classroom
4. they instill a sense of responsibility
5. they have high expectations
6. they teach by showing

He ends by talking about teaching and learning as a craft—something that can be honed and worked on throughout a lifetime.

Susan Sontag

The New York Times had an article about the publication of Susan Sontag's journals/diaries. Here's my favorite line, and then the rest of her quote.

Nothing prevents me from being a writer except laziness. A good writer.

Why is writing important? Mainly, out of egotism, I suppose. Because I want to be that persona, a writer, and not because there is something I must say. Yet why not that too? With a little ego-building — such as the fait accompli this journal provides — I shall win through to the confidence that I (I) have something to say, that should be said.

My “I” is puny, cautious, too sane. Good writers are roaring egotists, even to the point of fatuity. Sane men, critics, correct them — but their sanity is parasitic on the creative fatuity of genius.

"Desert Island Discourse" by Elbow and Clarke

“Desert Island Discourse: The Benefits of Ignoring Audience” by Elbow and Clarke (in The Journal Book)

In this article, Elbow and Clarke suggest that writers ignore audience, not altogether, but especially during the beginning stages of writing. They write that many famous authors never write specifically for the audience; they write for themselves. They write that focusing on audience can inhibit writing. They use the example of Joe. Joe wrote pieces for the teacher that were stilted and boring, but his journal writing was filled with voice. He explained to the teacher that she was only allowed to “overhear” what he wrote in his journal. When he ignored her and wrote in his journal, his writing was so much better.

They make two claims: “ignoring writing may lead to poor or ineffective writing at first, yet lead to better writing in the end . . . .” The second claim is that “ignoring audience can lead immediately to better writing” (p. 46).

Elbow writes that this idea of focusing on audience stems for Piaget, who writes that students move from egocentric to social. Elbow writes that students ability to reflect and turn off audience awareness is a higher skill, just as writing for an audience is.

What he espouses is the importance of “private writing.”

Why is he so controversial? It may be because he gives students or writers credit for knowing something. I think many teachers probably know a student like Joe.

This is an article that was also in our MWP packet. It could be an article that could start a good conversation on public versus private writing. The discussion of Piaget versus Vygotsky is interesting because it shows how our thinking about writing instruction is founded in psychology. He shows in this article that the Piagetian philosophy forces teachers to want children to “decenter” and move away from egocentrism. Elbow says egocentrism in writing, or ignoring audience, can immediately lead to better writing. I agree.

Blending genre, altering style by Romano

Blending genre, altering style by Romano is a book that outlines, explains, and provides strategies for the multigenre paper. Romano shares student examples of multigenre writing, and he shares short assignments that students could try and include in their multigenre papers.

A weakness is that he doesn't give the reader much concrete information when it comes to assessment. There is a chapter at the end about assessment, but it wasn't that helpful. Especially when a teacher works in a tradition researcher-paper oriented school, it would be helpful to describe more about assessment or a firm rationale for why multigenre is better than a traditional research paper.

Even if teachers bought this book and didn't try a multigenre paper, they could use his ideas for individual assignments. Some of these individual assignments that I really like are the multi-voice poem, photograph poem, and his Count Basie activity (Ch. 1). I have tried his activities in class, and they were motivating to students and fun to use. I also felt like the multigenre papers were beneficial to students in really understanding the purpose of research. Katie wrote a multigenre paper about her parents' divorce, and she went to the Internet and researched her parents' divorce decree. In some ways, a multigenre paper is similar to an I-search in that they both are concerned with students choosing a topic that matters. When they find that topic, they will be much more motivated to do authentic and important research that matters to them.

He doesn't talk much about his transition from traditional papers to multigenre papers, although that might be something he addresses in Writing with Passion. A good book to pair with multigenre writing would be The Collected Works of Billy the Kid and Karen Hesse's Witness.

Burke's Reminders

Jim Burke is the author of the English Teacher's Companion, Writing Reminders, and Reading Reminders.

Summary: Burke's book includes many resources. The chapters are short and may include procedures for a certain strategy and an accompanying scoring guide. Writing Reminders and Reading Reminders are both set up like this. I feel like a practicing teacher would find these books very handy. They could pull the book off the shelf, photocopy a checklist, or revise a checklist, and use it in class the same day. There is little theoretical emphasis in the book.

Strengths: It is user friendly. It is concrete. It is practical.

Weaknesses: No theoretical underpinnings. Not much research to explain why you would or should try the strategy, but I understand that's not really it's purpose. This is a handy how-to with concrete and practical tips. That is both a strength and a weakness.

We talked about using Burke's Writing Reminders book for the Literacy Academy this summer. The Literacy Academy was aimed for Middle School teachers. There were some high school and early middle school teachers there as well. Here's the reason why I did not choose Burke's books: This book provides great strategies in short and easy to read "sound bytes." A teacher can open the book and in five minutes present something to the class. The book does not really reflect on the research or require the reader to reflect on their practices. I felt like this book would be good for a person who has already philosophically and theoretically "bought into" a reading and writing classroom, but it won't help a teacher to think about where they are and where they want to go.

Everyone Can Write by Elbow

Summary: This is a collection of essays written by Elbow. This books includes his essay on his experiences in graduate school, binary thinking, maps of writing, and contract grading, to name a few. The book is thick and covers a lot of material. In my notebook, I've already discussed Writing Without Teachers, and this book is a later and more explicit. I found that there were practices that he used in his own classes that I could implement in my own (i.e. contract grades).
I was introduced to Elbow's writing in graduate school. I read his article on ranking and evaluating, and I began to question what it means to assess student writing. Those ideas simmered for a while until I began teaching, and then slowly the ideas started to come together as I became a practicing teacher. At some point, I went to Barnes and Noble. I don't know if I was looking for his books, or if I just happened to encounter this one. I came across Everyone Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing. I bought this book with my own money and not because it was assigned.

I started reading, and I started thinking. I told my friend Lindsay about the book, and she bought it as well. I really latched on to the idea of contract grading and also his essay called "The Map of Writing," which introduces the idea of private and public writing and the variety of audiences students should be writing for.

This book affected my teaching in profound ways (much like Atwell's book). I have passed this book to other teachers who returned the book to me without a comment. I also have passed the book to teachers who were profoundly influenced by it.

Elbow is easy to read because of his voice. Once again, he is a writer who shares his process. The first article in Everyone can write is called "Illiteracy at Harvard and Oxford." The fact that he went to this very prestigious schools and still didn't feel like he could write is rather encouraging. He's not afraid to share his mistakes, and I like how he uses writing to explore his thinking.

Many readers may see Elbow as "loosy-goosey," whatever that means. Some readers may say he rambles. Other readers may say his writing is too personal and thus not acacdemic.

Inspiration or The Writing Life

There are several books I would like to lump together: The Right to Write by Julia Cameron; Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott; Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg; and On Writing by Stephen King.

Summary: Each of these books includes stories about the authors own writing life. The books also includes suggestions or short assignments for readers to try. All of the books could be considered inspirational. Many authors write about their own writing, including Elbow and Macrorie, but these authors are more contemporary, and I find myself using them in the Writing Project or with writing classes.

These books show writers like myself that writing is agonizing, and a writer, published or not, goes through similar experiences. I can take a section or a chapter out of these books and share with Writing Project participants or high school students. I did this often with "Don't Tell, But Show" by Goldberg and with sections from Lamott's work. I share "Shitty First Drafts" with teachers. The writers who tell me how to write with strategies aren't nearly as interesting as the writers who share their writing processes.

Some weaknesses: Many readers might be put off by Goldberg's work she is a a Jewish woman who is a practicing Buddhist. She talks a lot about her spirituality, as does Lamott, in fact. And Lamott is a Christian. The more I think about it, Lamott and King both had alcohol and substance abuse problems. It makes me think that, in a way, these books could be included in a writing as healing section.

I used The Right to Write in the online class I taught. She had short chapters with short assignments at the end. The reaction I received was interesting. Some students liked her work, and others thought she was arrogant. I never really saw the arrogance, unless arrogance and directness can be confused. She may have issued challenges to readers. She's a bit more "in your face" than someone like Goldberg. Goldberg, Lamott, and King write with humor, and Cameron does not.

Strengths: short sections can be taken out and used in in-services; each of these is fun to read and can help already motivated writers to write more.

Atwell's In the Middle

Well, you would have thought I would have written about this already. I pushed it to the side thought because I know it so well. Russell kind of through me for a loop in our practice comprehensive exam. He said that Atwell said she's not a reading teacher. I didn't remember that part, and Dr. Fox explained that maybe she was equating reading with decoding (and NCLB), and that literature was not about decoding. That made sense, and I guess I can see her saying that.

Summary: In the Middle is a foundational reading in terms of an instructional practice called Reading and Writing Workshop. Atwell was not the first person to talk or write about this, but she was the first to reach a large audience. Part of that has to be because of her easy-to-read, conversational tone. Some books share lists of strategies. Some books share stories of teaching. Atwell does a nice job of integrating the two. Atwell is well-read and she includes much of the research and reading that influenced her thinking. She includes many of her workshop handouts that can be photocopied from the book and used immediately. She outlines Reading Workshop. Reading workshop is where a teacher would have a large library in the room, and he or she would allow students to choose their own reading books. The teacher would include time in class to read. Atwell's students wrote letters to her about their reading and she would respond.

Writing workshop is similar in that students chose their own topics to write about. Atwell gave them time in class to write. She conferenced with them, and students conferenced together. Atwell includes pages of lists for both reading and writing mini-lessons. These are handy for a teacher starting off. A good place to start is the Reading and Writing Territories list. Atwell also shares in her book the modeling that she did with students. She shares many examples that she wrote and shared with students, and she includes many student examples, which are also very helpful.

This was a good book that offered suggestions for how to create a workshp environment in my classroom. I used her ideas for mini-lessons to get started on my own. I used her workshop handouts to get my own workshop started. I have a friend who likes Rief better than Atwell. She says Atwell isn't realistic because she taught seven kids in essentially a private school. I don't really agree with that. Rief's okay too, but Atwell supports herself better in the research.

I like her honesty. I like reading about what she is reading. I like her long lists of ideas for mini-lessons, her paperwork, and her research.

Here is a problem I have with her work, and it's not really her problem. Some teachers, if they are not at the right "place" in their career, can't really appreciate what she has to say. Also, I don't know if Atwell can be used to the most benefit in a methods course.

She's not as concrete as some writers (Lane or Beers). She's not strategy-driven. Her appendix is filled with handouts that help to create the environment, not work on specific "reading" problems. That lack of concreteness may be difficult for some teachers to grasp. It's a foundational reading for me personally.

Teaching with Blogs

Teaching with Blogs
I was looking for qualitative studies about blogging, and I found this. They haven't published yet, but they presented some of the initial insights. I thought it might be helpful to look at what they found. Post what you think.

Ong

Well, I've been a terrible blogger. As you can see, I haven't posted since about April. I'm a little made at myself that I haven't posted all of my writings for my comprehensive exams on here. But my friend Amy and I are trying to support each other. I thought it might be easier if I posted on my blog. I'll send her my site.

I'm reading Ong today and listening to the Woods Brothers.

I need to summarize Ong's main points, and also discuss strengths and weaknesses. So, here we go:

Ong discusses the transition from an oral tradition, or pre-literate society, to a literate society. From the beginning of the book he got my attention. His refrain is this: just imagine if you had never seen writing before. You would have only been dealing with sounds, and you wouldn't have the visual component of your thinking that writing brings. I consider this book a history of writing, in a sense. I know that Ong has to be related to blogging [part of my dissertation research] because our society's literacy is shifting into what I guess would be called New Literacy. Here's an article from James Gee that may help define New Literacy. Ong says that writing changed thinking, and the same things that we say about computers were said about writing. He also points out that writing is a technology. Our new computer technology is introducing us to "secondary orality" (p. 136).

Like primary orality, secondary orality has generated a strong group sense, for listneing to spoken words forms hearers into a group, a true audience, just as reading written or printed texts turns individuals in on themselves. But secondary orality generates a sense for groups immeasaurably larger than those of primary oral culture--McLuhan's global village 9p. 136).

Ong, early in the book, discussed some characteristics of the oral tradition such as repetition and redundancy. He mentioned that pauses are effective in speeches, but it is easy to lose track. It's easier to keep going and just repeat yourself. This repetition reminds me a bit of five-paragraph essays. You repeat yourself twice, and you have three points which are easy to keep track of, and five-paragraph essays do come from speech communications, right?

Ong writes, "a written text is basically unresponsive” (p. 79). Not true with blogs. He says writing and computers are passive. But is that true anymore? On page 97, he brings up time and that time in a more oral culture wasn't fixed. That idea reminded me of the article on Time Speaks.

“Writing is always a kind of imitation talking” (p. 102). He also discusses on this page that in writing the extratextual content is missing, and I wonder if that is true with blogs or instant messaging.

Ong, like Postman, mentions the Lincoln-Douglas debates when audiences sat through hours of speeches, the point being that we no longer have that capacity. Our thinking has changed and our attention span.