Week 2 post

While going through the readings for this week, I could not help but notice how Tom Romano's work failed to meet the primary undergirding principles that were laid out in Willam's ninth chapter. Within that chapter, Williams asks that the reader always keep the question in mind "why am I teaching/assigning this?" In other words, he suggests that teachers should always keep their goals and objectives in mind while creating lessons and assignments. While this seems painfully intuitive, Williams makes the claim that there is a majority of teachers who do not keep this in mind, that many teachers throw things together the night before with little real thought to its purpose and utility on a larger level. I wish that I could disbeleive this, but I simply cannot. In my experience as a high school student, as well as a teacher in training, I have been witness to teachers who do not seem to practice this kind of straightforward thinkning. Keeping this in mind, I switched over to the Romano reading imediately after I had finished with the aforementioned.

Romano opens his book up with a very strange and pompous introduction that fails to acheive what he claims to set otut to accomplish. He then jumps straight into his back to back chapters that detail how to include multi-genre paper instruction in a typical classroom. What I felt was lacking here was any sort of hook, or reason to include this method or writing style into the classroom. It seemed to me that Romano wrote the book based on an assumption that the reader would want to immediately include multi-genre papers into the classroom. What was lacking was any sort of reason that this should be done. To be entirely honest in this blog posting, I thought that what I found within the pages of Romano's book, while a great form of personal expression that I am sure will be more fun to correct, might have very little to offer students on an academic level.

week 1 post

I feel like many of my classmates and I have been frustrated by many assigned readings from the past several months. A concern that I have had in particular is that much of what we have spent time on is theory, and theory alone. While I feel that it is ultimately essential that we all have a good understanding and knowledge of such published theory, I almost felt unequipped to make good sense of it when it was given to me. I have very little real teaching experience, and therefore don't know first hand what works and what doesn't (as far as strategies go), and I think that my preparatory classes should give me some concrete knowledge about tried and true methods and strategies as well as the theory that undergirds them. This is why I very much enjoyed the assigned Carney reading for this week - the reading openly addressed the compromise that is necessary for working within the constrictions of the real world. Too seldom is this acknowledged (in my experience) when discussing methods and strategies.

I think that it is safe to say that this entire cohort is expecting there to be many difficulties and obstacles to overcome when implementing finely tuned lesson plans, be they technical, practical, or otherwise. In addition, I think that we as a student group are all willing to put in any extra time and effort into our teaching methods that might produce a significant return. In other words, if it requires more work but gets results, this cohort will be happy to give it a shot. Additionally, I think that it is fairly reasonable to assume that we as a student group would not feel that traditional instructional writing practices are appropriate insomuch as they are generally not conducive with good writing, and good writing practices. Not all students will have the opportunity to take writing electives, and not all will want to. Nevertheless, I feel that all students deserve to be exposed to the writing process as offered in more intensive courses, and as described by Carney.

In my experience as a student of writing, I think that Carney identifies much of what I felt was most beneficial in learning the writing process. I did everything I could to avoid writing multiple drafts until my last semester of high school, when I had a teacher who took notice of the lazy writing practices I had developed, and would not allow me to employ them further. At first, I think I was too lazy to go through the drafting and editing process that was generally assigned. I viewed compositions and essays differently than I do now - I looked at writing assignments, and tried to decide how to get the best grade possible with the least amount of effort... a path of least resistance kind of thing. It was not until going much deeper with writing that I began to take pride in what I produced, and looked for ways to genuinely improve my writing and editing skills. I think that I am not alone in how I reacted to the two different approaches to writing instruction, and I believe that many students can benefit greatly by going more in depth with the entire writing process as described by Carney. Even the smaller details - like reading out loud, and only allowing the writer to make changes - were details that I remember making a big difference for me and my classmates years ago.


And for my link...

www.questia.com

This is an online research library that has many of our texts on it. It costs money, but is far cheaper than buying the texts... Unless you sell them back on amazon. Either way, its another option.