I have spent a good portion of the weekend working on my pedagogy and the rest of it working on other homework, so it is safe to say I am mentally exhausted right now.
Anyway, I can happily say that the core concepts of my pedagogy came together fairly quickly as I looked over the articles we have read this semester. These blogs have been a great help as well—it’s interesting to see how my ideas have developed over time into what they are now. There is a progression of thought through all the posts, and reading them again really helped to remind me of the various theories, sessions, and discussions that have influenced my advising philosophy.
On a slightly different note, I have sort of been testing my pedagogy in the sessions we’ve had with English 101 students (we all have been, I’m sure), and it’s been going surprisingly well. My first session earlier in the semester was a little stressful, of course, but the following ones have really helped me to understand my preferred approach. Although I am still looking forward to getting the writer’s feedback on the most recent sessions, I do think I can safely say they were productive. Thinking back over it all, I’m actually a little excited to finish getting my thoughts organized into my pedagogy, but my brain is not really reaching its optimum level of performance right now, so I think I’ll have to get some sleep before I continue working on my draft.
Well, this is a short post. I really, really hope I can make up for some of these blog posts in the following weeks. For now, though, I guess this will have to do. I hope your drafts are coming together nicely! I’m really excited to hear about someone else’s pedagogy on Tuesday. Happy writing, everyone!
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Reflecting on this Semester
This weekend, I spent some time looking over everything we read this semester. I definitely think the exposure to all the contrasting views of the writing center and advising in general has helped me to gain confidence in my own advising abilities—I think there is always a certain benefit to learning from the actions of others rather than blindly jumping in and trying to make it on your own.
In a way, the great contrast in advising strategies we’ve seen through all of these articles concludes perfectly with Jeanne Simpson’s “Whose Idea Of A Writing Center Is This, Anyway?”. Instead of being taught one supposedly-superior advising method, we’ve been exposed to many and asked to conform to none. We haven’t been pressured into considering one inferior to another; on the contrary, we’ve been encouraged to see each of them from the perspective of the author. Quite similar to what Simpson states in her essay, this whole class seems to be structured around the concept that “[c]linging to a fixed idea of a writing center, whatever each of us thinks that idea is, shuts of opportunities.” Now, having examined many possible perspectives of the writing center, we are being given the opportunity to determine where we stand—whether that place is somewhere within them or outside of them. Still, I think we will all continue to benefit from this background knowledge of contrasting opinions. I know it has helped me to see the writing center and writing itself in many new ways, and I will carry all of those ideas with me into the center—even if I didn’t particularly agree with some of them, they’ll be in the back of my mind to constantly serve as a reminder that not all think as I do. More importantly, though, I think our exposure to the wide range of voices within writing center discourse could serve a much more general, yet highly significant purpose: to show us just how many different perspectives there may be on one certain situation, or how many different approaches there are to one certain task. As advisors, we’re exposed to the same sort of contrasting spectrum of ideas in our sessions with writers, and it is undeniably important for us to keep an open mind to those ideas. Our goal is not to enforce a completely identical writing style and thought process among all students, just as Dr. Mattison’s goal was not to get us all to follow one advising method. Instead, we must appreciate the value of the great range of ideas and approaches we will undoubtedly find throughout our time as advisors. Consciously making these connections between this class and our future work is probably not necessary for us to succeed as advisors, but doing so has made me see just how well this class has prepared us for what lies ahead.
In a way, the great contrast in advising strategies we’ve seen through all of these articles concludes perfectly with Jeanne Simpson’s “Whose Idea Of A Writing Center Is This, Anyway?”. Instead of being taught one supposedly-superior advising method, we’ve been exposed to many and asked to conform to none. We haven’t been pressured into considering one inferior to another; on the contrary, we’ve been encouraged to see each of them from the perspective of the author. Quite similar to what Simpson states in her essay, this whole class seems to be structured around the concept that “[c]linging to a fixed idea of a writing center, whatever each of us thinks that idea is, shuts of opportunities.” Now, having examined many possible perspectives of the writing center, we are being given the opportunity to determine where we stand—whether that place is somewhere within them or outside of them. Still, I think we will all continue to benefit from this background knowledge of contrasting opinions. I know it has helped me to see the writing center and writing itself in many new ways, and I will carry all of those ideas with me into the center—even if I didn’t particularly agree with some of them, they’ll be in the back of my mind to constantly serve as a reminder that not all think as I do. More importantly, though, I think our exposure to the wide range of voices within writing center discourse could serve a much more general, yet highly significant purpose: to show us just how many different perspectives there may be on one certain situation, or how many different approaches there are to one certain task. As advisors, we’re exposed to the same sort of contrasting spectrum of ideas in our sessions with writers, and it is undeniably important for us to keep an open mind to those ideas. Our goal is not to enforce a completely identical writing style and thought process among all students, just as Dr. Mattison’s goal was not to get us all to follow one advising method. Instead, we must appreciate the value of the great range of ideas and approaches we will undoubtedly find throughout our time as advisors. Consciously making these connections between this class and our future work is probably not necessary for us to succeed as advisors, but doing so has made me see just how well this class has prepared us for what lies ahead.
Peer Editing
A few of you have posted your opinions on peer editing, so I thought I’d join the discussion (a little late, I admit).
Anyway, I think there are certainly benefits to peer editing, as Ana Jeanne mentioned, and I am all for it in the writing center where the peers doing the editing are trained, experienced writers who are genuinely interested in helping others, but I am not sure how I feel about it in general.
I’ve been more aware of what takes place in peer editing sessions in my other classes this semester, and I have come to the unfortunate realization that some students have managed to get through English 101 with virtually no understanding of academic essays. Some students think the thesis is always the first sentence of the essay; some think paragraphs that take half of a double-spaced page are always too long. I am not sure how these misconceptions started or survived within a writing-intensive curriculum, but I have come across students with them more than I would like to admit. When I have had peer editing sessions in my other classes, I have often found that the advice given to me is tainted based on these misconceptions, and if I were to adjust my paper accordingly, it would be for the worst. Fortunately, I am familiar enough with academic writing standards to avoid the potential pitfalls of these peer editing sessions, but I know that some other students have a less thorough understanding that may make them accept advice that could harm their papers.
Although I don’t think peer editing sessions should be altogether eliminated from the classroom, I do think these problems need to be addressed. Perhaps we need more thorough explanations of the structure of whatever type of writing is involved in the class itself, rather than expecting a certain level of acquired knowledge in this area already. These explanations would be especially applicable to classes that directly follow English 101 (English 180, for example), and any writing-intensive non-English course with its own standards. The classes need not spend a great deal of time on these general instructions, but even a fifteen minute workshop or a handout might help. On a more fundamental level, I think these sorts of classes could simply avoid assuming that all students know and fully understand terms like ‘thesis,’ ‘topic sentence,’ ‘counter-argument,’ and ‘rebuttal,’ as well as more general aspects such as the extent of evidence needed to support a claim. These terms and composition strategies don't need to be re-taught in every class, but the assignment handouts could easily work in a clear definition of what is required instead of having vague statements such as “Your paper should have a clear thesis.”
All in all, I really support the idea of peer editing, but at this point, I cannot fully support it in action. There is a pervasive lack of thorough understanding among students when it comes to academic writing techniques, and it has an alarmingly powerful ability to spread within peer editing sessions. If these sessions continue as they always have, many students will leave them feeling confused, and professors may see weaker writing from students who were on the right track to begin with. However, if these issues are somehow addressed, the quality of writing among all students could greatly improve.
Anyway, I think there are certainly benefits to peer editing, as Ana Jeanne mentioned, and I am all for it in the writing center where the peers doing the editing are trained, experienced writers who are genuinely interested in helping others, but I am not sure how I feel about it in general.
I’ve been more aware of what takes place in peer editing sessions in my other classes this semester, and I have come to the unfortunate realization that some students have managed to get through English 101 with virtually no understanding of academic essays. Some students think the thesis is always the first sentence of the essay; some think paragraphs that take half of a double-spaced page are always too long. I am not sure how these misconceptions started or survived within a writing-intensive curriculum, but I have come across students with them more than I would like to admit. When I have had peer editing sessions in my other classes, I have often found that the advice given to me is tainted based on these misconceptions, and if I were to adjust my paper accordingly, it would be for the worst. Fortunately, I am familiar enough with academic writing standards to avoid the potential pitfalls of these peer editing sessions, but I know that some other students have a less thorough understanding that may make them accept advice that could harm their papers.
Although I don’t think peer editing sessions should be altogether eliminated from the classroom, I do think these problems need to be addressed. Perhaps we need more thorough explanations of the structure of whatever type of writing is involved in the class itself, rather than expecting a certain level of acquired knowledge in this area already. These explanations would be especially applicable to classes that directly follow English 101 (English 180, for example), and any writing-intensive non-English course with its own standards. The classes need not spend a great deal of time on these general instructions, but even a fifteen minute workshop or a handout might help. On a more fundamental level, I think these sorts of classes could simply avoid assuming that all students know and fully understand terms like ‘thesis,’ ‘topic sentence,’ ‘counter-argument,’ and ‘rebuttal,’ as well as more general aspects such as the extent of evidence needed to support a claim. These terms and composition strategies don't need to be re-taught in every class, but the assignment handouts could easily work in a clear definition of what is required instead of having vague statements such as “Your paper should have a clear thesis.”
All in all, I really support the idea of peer editing, but at this point, I cannot fully support it in action. There is a pervasive lack of thorough understanding among students when it comes to academic writing techniques, and it has an alarmingly powerful ability to spread within peer editing sessions. If these sessions continue as they always have, many students will leave them feeling confused, and professors may see weaker writing from students who were on the right track to begin with. However, if these issues are somehow addressed, the quality of writing among all students could greatly improve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)