10-second review: Students explore the lyrics of R.E.M. and the poems of Emily Dickinson.
Title: “ ‘It Beckons, and It Baffles’--: Resurrecting Emily Dickinson (and Poetry) in the Student-Centered Classroom.” P.L. Thomas. English Journal (March 1998), 60-63. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Students conclude their unit by using Dickinson’s poems as models to write their own poems.
Comment: A pretty good way to end any unit on poetry. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past issues of English education journals.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Topic: Grammar and Writing
10-second review: The issue of grammar and its relationship to writing is still alive. We need to recognize that research has not been able to prove that a knowledge of grammar improves writing.
Title: “Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger.” C Van Zalingen. English Journal (March 1998), 12-13. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quotes: Question to a presenter on writing workshops at a convention: “When do your students learn the difference between a gerund and a participle?”
“…the formal study of grammar, whether transformational or traditional, improved neither writing quality, nor control over surface corrections.” Patrick Hartwell, College English (February 1985), 106.
“Unfortunately, the premise that students need to know all the parts of speech before they can write well continues to pervade the teaching of writing in spite of the mountain of research which clearly contradicts it.”
“They [adherents of grammar] suspect that writing workshop teachers turn their students loose with wild abandon and allow them to write to their ‘hearts’ content without regard to usage, punctuation or spelling because they ‘don’t matter.’ ”
“Furthermore, when we ourselves write, we do not stop mid-sentence and think to ourselves, ‘I’ve just used the prepositional phrase as an adjective,’ so why do we think drumming the difference between a prepositional phrase used as an adjective and one used as an adverb will enhance our students’ writing?”
Summary: After summarizing the different points of view on the teaching of grammar, the author concludes that grammar is best taught functionally, by helping students learn to correct problems in usage, punctuation and sentence structure within the students’ own writing.
Comment: I think English teachers who are supposed to teach students to think fall into the trap of the “either/or” fallacy. Remember the big brouhaha over process vs. product in writing? You need both. The same is true of formal grammar vs. functional grammar—you need both.
There are times when key concepts like “sentences,” “clauses” and “phrases” can best be taught at one time rather than having to teach it over and over again as each individual student needs it. And, of course, students need to learn to proofread sentence structure, usage, punctuation and spelling in order to polish their writing.
And it’s not grammar vs. writing. You certainly need to teach grammar within the context of writing. However, I do remember that when I was in high school, my English teachers believed that grammar had to be learned first BEFORE they taught writing. As a result, I was never taught to write, went to college and my first composition was returned with the comment, “Where’s your summary paragraph?” I had never heard of a summary paragraph. When my college English teachers mentioned “term papers,” I asked, “What’s a term paper?” I know that is ancient history, but that’s the way it was when I was in high school.
By the way, common sense should tell you that studying grammar will probably not improve writing. Compositions involve quality of content, organization, paragraphs, unity and coherence. Grammar focuses only on the sentence. Judgments of writing focus on the total composition, content, organization, paragraphs primarily—and correctness at the sentence level.
I made up my mind a long time ago on the issue of formal grammar and writing.
1. I do not teach grammar BEFORE teaching writing. I teach grammar and writing at the same time so they can be applied to each other.
2. I always ask and answer the question, “Why?” when I teach grammar. How will the students use what they have learned about grammar in their writing, especially as applied to usage, sentence structure and punctuation. The purpose of grammar, so far as I am concerned, is to polish writing.
3. I teach grammar formally to the class when all the students need to learn the concept as applied to their writing. I teach students to proofread and to use a reference text in order to find answers to their questions about sentence structure, usage and punctuation. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past issues of English education journals.
Title: “Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger.” C Van Zalingen. English Journal (March 1998), 12-13. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quotes: Question to a presenter on writing workshops at a convention: “When do your students learn the difference between a gerund and a participle?”
“…the formal study of grammar, whether transformational or traditional, improved neither writing quality, nor control over surface corrections.” Patrick Hartwell, College English (February 1985), 106.
“Unfortunately, the premise that students need to know all the parts of speech before they can write well continues to pervade the teaching of writing in spite of the mountain of research which clearly contradicts it.”
“They [adherents of grammar] suspect that writing workshop teachers turn their students loose with wild abandon and allow them to write to their ‘hearts’ content without regard to usage, punctuation or spelling because they ‘don’t matter.’ ”
“Furthermore, when we ourselves write, we do not stop mid-sentence and think to ourselves, ‘I’ve just used the prepositional phrase as an adjective,’ so why do we think drumming the difference between a prepositional phrase used as an adjective and one used as an adverb will enhance our students’ writing?”
Summary: After summarizing the different points of view on the teaching of grammar, the author concludes that grammar is best taught functionally, by helping students learn to correct problems in usage, punctuation and sentence structure within the students’ own writing.
Comment: I think English teachers who are supposed to teach students to think fall into the trap of the “either/or” fallacy. Remember the big brouhaha over process vs. product in writing? You need both. The same is true of formal grammar vs. functional grammar—you need both.
There are times when key concepts like “sentences,” “clauses” and “phrases” can best be taught at one time rather than having to teach it over and over again as each individual student needs it. And, of course, students need to learn to proofread sentence structure, usage, punctuation and spelling in order to polish their writing.
And it’s not grammar vs. writing. You certainly need to teach grammar within the context of writing. However, I do remember that when I was in high school, my English teachers believed that grammar had to be learned first BEFORE they taught writing. As a result, I was never taught to write, went to college and my first composition was returned with the comment, “Where’s your summary paragraph?” I had never heard of a summary paragraph. When my college English teachers mentioned “term papers,” I asked, “What’s a term paper?” I know that is ancient history, but that’s the way it was when I was in high school.
By the way, common sense should tell you that studying grammar will probably not improve writing. Compositions involve quality of content, organization, paragraphs, unity and coherence. Grammar focuses only on the sentence. Judgments of writing focus on the total composition, content, organization, paragraphs primarily—and correctness at the sentence level.
I made up my mind a long time ago on the issue of formal grammar and writing.
1. I do not teach grammar BEFORE teaching writing. I teach grammar and writing at the same time so they can be applied to each other.
2. I always ask and answer the question, “Why?” when I teach grammar. How will the students use what they have learned about grammar in their writing, especially as applied to usage, sentence structure and punctuation. The purpose of grammar, so far as I am concerned, is to polish writing.
3. I teach grammar formally to the class when all the students need to learn the concept as applied to their writing. I teach students to proofread and to use a reference text in order to find answers to their questions about sentence structure, usage and punctuation. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past issues of English education journals.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Topic: Censorship
10-second review: A side-effect of censorship incidents is self-censorship.
Title: “Seeing with the Third Eye.” Lloyd Alexander. English Journal (May 1974), 38. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “Censorship, once begun, is hard to contain. It can soon spread to include any idea or attitude the censors find objectionable. At worst, it can lead to something even more pernicious: self-censorship.”
Comment: Don’t forget the “basics” of preparation for censorship incidents:
1. Policy on book selection.
2. Rationales for literary works, controversial or non-controversial, since no one cannot predict what will be censored.
3. Questionnaire to be completed by the person objecting to a book.
4. Committee consisting of administrators, teachers, parents and older students to determine disposition of the book or recommendation to the school board.
Information on all of this can be found at the Web site of the National Council of Teachers of English, ncte.org. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past issues of English education journals.
Title: “Seeing with the Third Eye.” Lloyd Alexander. English Journal (May 1974), 38. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “Censorship, once begun, is hard to contain. It can soon spread to include any idea or attitude the censors find objectionable. At worst, it can lead to something even more pernicious: self-censorship.”
Comment: Don’t forget the “basics” of preparation for censorship incidents:
1. Policy on book selection.
2. Rationales for literary works, controversial or non-controversial, since no one cannot predict what will be censored.
3. Questionnaire to be completed by the person objecting to a book.
4. Committee consisting of administrators, teachers, parents and older students to determine disposition of the book or recommendation to the school board.
Information on all of this can be found at the Web site of the National Council of Teachers of English, ncte.org. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past issues of English education journals.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Topic: Parents' View of English
Ten-second review: Parents’ criticism of English as it is taught today (1974).
Title: “The Fear of English Teachers.” Ken Donelson. English Journal (May 1974), 14-15. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English.
Summary: After stating the obvious, that telling strangers you’re an English teacher will evoke some variation of “I better watch my English,” the author quotes parents on other aspects of English:
1. “English teachers should correct my kid’s language more than they do. I want him to be educated better than me.”
2. “English teachers spend too much time on those lie/lay, who/whom things.”
3. “I learned three rules from English teachers: never end a sentence with a preposition; never begin a sentence with a conjunction; and never split an infinitive.”
Comment: I remember a parent who wrote a criticism that her preparation in English was superior to the present-day teaching of English. She read it to the school board and her message was received with applause. She emphasized that we should be diagramming and drilling on grammar. In a fit of hubris, she let me, the language arts supervisor, read her written criticism. Her writing was riddled with grammatical mistakes in sentence structure, usage, punctuation and—can you believe it?—spelling. I spilled red ink all over it. Neither the school board nor the administration would touch it.
1. “…than I (not ‘me’) (am educated).”
2. One junior high teacher, a female, said, “That’s it. I’m never going to teach ‘lie and lay’ to teen-age boys again.” [I suggest that English teachers teach kids how to “write around” tricky usage like “lie/lay” and “who/whom.”]
3. Churchill: “That is something up with which I will not put.”
And that is how I feel about beginning sentences with conjunctions.
I have been taught to not split an infinitive. It often sounds better not to split an infinitive.
Not too seriously.
Moral: English teachers must educate students—and parents!. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past issues of English education journals.
Title: “The Fear of English Teachers.” Ken Donelson. English Journal (May 1974), 14-15. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English.
Summary: After stating the obvious, that telling strangers you’re an English teacher will evoke some variation of “I better watch my English,” the author quotes parents on other aspects of English:
1. “English teachers should correct my kid’s language more than they do. I want him to be educated better than me.”
2. “English teachers spend too much time on those lie/lay, who/whom things.”
3. “I learned three rules from English teachers: never end a sentence with a preposition; never begin a sentence with a conjunction; and never split an infinitive.”
Comment: I remember a parent who wrote a criticism that her preparation in English was superior to the present-day teaching of English. She read it to the school board and her message was received with applause. She emphasized that we should be diagramming and drilling on grammar. In a fit of hubris, she let me, the language arts supervisor, read her written criticism. Her writing was riddled with grammatical mistakes in sentence structure, usage, punctuation and—can you believe it?—spelling. I spilled red ink all over it. Neither the school board nor the administration would touch it.
1. “…than I (not ‘me’) (am educated).”
2. One junior high teacher, a female, said, “That’s it. I’m never going to teach ‘lie and lay’ to teen-age boys again.” [I suggest that English teachers teach kids how to “write around” tricky usage like “lie/lay” and “who/whom.”]
3. Churchill: “That is something up with which I will not put.”
And that is how I feel about beginning sentences with conjunctions.
I have been taught to not split an infinitive. It often sounds better not to split an infinitive.
Not too seriously.
Moral: English teachers must educate students—and parents!. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past issues of English education journals.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Topic: The 21st Century Viewed from 1974
10-second review: Even if print is dead, we must recognize that all methods of communication will likely have the same problems.
Title: “Presidential Address.” Walker Gibson. English Journal (May 1974), 8-10. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Comment: I thought it would be interesting in the twenty-first century to see how the president of the NCTE in 1974 foresaw what was likely to happen in English in the twenty-first century. RayS.
Quote: “The twenty-first century, of course, is indeed blank on the chart, but we can say that in that century the processes of communication are not going to get any simpler We can safely bet that one criterion for survival or success will be a capacity to change symbol systems, to invent new ones and adapt old ones for unpredictable situations. The print medium may be dead, for all I know—so be it. But what we tell our students today, about any medium of communication, is sure to be of use if it can be applied to any other medium of communication. As I’ve tried to suggest for example, a person trained in making literary discriminations can, if he is willing to try, use this skill to make discriminations about the language of bureaucracy in Washington.” p. 10.
Comment: Back to the twenty-first century, 2008. Well, print is not dead. It lives on in the Internet. But newspapers are failing and drying up with less and less newsprint and more and larger pictures. People still buy books, but the quality of those books is questionable—I guess it always was.
But he’s right. Communication is communication regardless of the medium. If you can deal with problems in print communication you can deal with problems in communication in all other mediums—pictures, slides, tape recorders, radio, Web sites, e-mail, e-books, cell phones, blogs, text messaging, film and whatever else I have forgotten.
Although the NCTE is encouraging multi-media communication, I am not sure how many English teachers are encouraging their students to communicate through non-print media or a combination of non-print and print media. But Gibson was right. Multi-media communication is where we’re headed and we have to do a deal of thinking about how to bring this about. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to present articles of contemporary interest in English education from professional English journals of the past (pre-2008 and 2009).
Title: “Presidential Address.” Walker Gibson. English Journal (May 1974), 8-10. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Comment: I thought it would be interesting in the twenty-first century to see how the president of the NCTE in 1974 foresaw what was likely to happen in English in the twenty-first century. RayS.
Quote: “The twenty-first century, of course, is indeed blank on the chart, but we can say that in that century the processes of communication are not going to get any simpler We can safely bet that one criterion for survival or success will be a capacity to change symbol systems, to invent new ones and adapt old ones for unpredictable situations. The print medium may be dead, for all I know—so be it. But what we tell our students today, about any medium of communication, is sure to be of use if it can be applied to any other medium of communication. As I’ve tried to suggest for example, a person trained in making literary discriminations can, if he is willing to try, use this skill to make discriminations about the language of bureaucracy in Washington.” p. 10.
Comment: Back to the twenty-first century, 2008. Well, print is not dead. It lives on in the Internet. But newspapers are failing and drying up with less and less newsprint and more and larger pictures. People still buy books, but the quality of those books is questionable—I guess it always was.
But he’s right. Communication is communication regardless of the medium. If you can deal with problems in print communication you can deal with problems in communication in all other mediums—pictures, slides, tape recorders, radio, Web sites, e-mail, e-books, cell phones, blogs, text messaging, film and whatever else I have forgotten.
Although the NCTE is encouraging multi-media communication, I am not sure how many English teachers are encouraging their students to communicate through non-print media or a combination of non-print and print media. But Gibson was right. Multi-media communication is where we’re headed and we have to do a deal of thinking about how to bring this about. RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to present articles of contemporary interest in English education from professional English journals of the past (pre-2008 and 2009).
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Topic: Reading Aloud to Secondary Students
10-second review: Remembers when a teacher read aloud to the author and decides to read to her classes.
Title: “To Capture Those Captives: Read to Your Students.” Beth C. Paullin. English Journal (November 1974), 88-89. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Why read aloud to secondary students? You’ll read great literature and you will transport your classes into another world. The class will come together. You will have fun.
Comment: And you will present a model of how to read aloud and silently. Students will feel the emotion conveyed by the words on the page. The words will come alive. Students will increase their vocabulary. Words they would pass over when reading silently, they will hear and understand when read to them aloud. You will be introducing them to works they might not have wanted to read. You will tempt the students to want to read their own books. Read selections. Read whole stories. It’s a shared experience with your students that they are likely to remember forever.
A word to the wise: prepare and practice before reading aloud.
I still remember the expressions on the faces of the students when I read “Most Dangerous Game” and Faulkner’s “Two Soldiers.” The students read along. They couldn’t wait to learn if Rainsford would escape and, after I read “Two Soldiers,” some of my students looked up from the copy they were following with tears in their eyes. When the vocabulary was too difficult for the students, I read Poe’s “The Pit and the Pendulum.” Boredom turned to rapt attention and thought. Dickens, when he read aloud on the lecture circuit, noted the reactions of his audience and said, “Now, that’s power.” RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past English education journals.
Title: “To Capture Those Captives: Read to Your Students.” Beth C. Paullin. English Journal (November 1974), 88-89. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Why read aloud to secondary students? You’ll read great literature and you will transport your classes into another world. The class will come together. You will have fun.
Comment: And you will present a model of how to read aloud and silently. Students will feel the emotion conveyed by the words on the page. The words will come alive. Students will increase their vocabulary. Words they would pass over when reading silently, they will hear and understand when read to them aloud. You will be introducing them to works they might not have wanted to read. You will tempt the students to want to read their own books. Read selections. Read whole stories. It’s a shared experience with your students that they are likely to remember forever.
A word to the wise: prepare and practice before reading aloud.
I still remember the expressions on the faces of the students when I read “Most Dangerous Game” and Faulkner’s “Two Soldiers.” The students read along. They couldn’t wait to learn if Rainsford would escape and, after I read “Two Soldiers,” some of my students looked up from the copy they were following with tears in their eyes. When the vocabulary was too difficult for the students, I read Poe’s “The Pit and the Pendulum.” Boredom turned to rapt attention and thought. Dickens, when he read aloud on the lecture circuit, noted the reactions of his audience and said, “Now, that’s power.” RayS.
The purpose of this blog, English Education Archives, is to review articles of contemporary interest from past English education journals.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Topic: Questions in Response to Literature
10-second review: Teachers should make up their own questions rather than begin with questions in the anthology.
Title: “When Teachers Talk and Students (Sometimes) Listen.” P. Sanders. English Journal (November 1974), 80-81. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: The author suggests that teachers develop a planned set of questions to ask students after reading a piece of literature instead of using the canned, scattershot questions from the anthology or other commercial sources that seem to have no plan or sequence.
Comment: I use an alternative to teachers' or textbooks' questions on literature. Have the students generate and answer their own questions.
Novel
1. Students read for five minutes near the beginning of the novel. What have they learned? What questions do they have? Record the questions using key words.
2. Students read for five minutes in the middle of the novel. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
3. Students read for five minutes three-fourths through the novel. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
4. Students read for five minutes near the end. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
5. Teacher and students organize the list of questions into questions of fact (can be answered in the text), questions of interpretation (Why? and How?) and questions of criticism.
6. The students read to answer the questions. They then discuss the answers to the questions.
7. Go back to see which questions in the anthology or other sources were not covered and discuss them. How many questions in the anthology did the students anticipate?
Short Story
1. Students read one sentence on each page or in each column. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
2. Students read one paragraph on each page or in each column. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
3. Students read the first sentence of each paragraph throughout the story. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
4. Teacher and students organize the list of questions according to whether they are questions of fact (can be answered in the text), interpretation (Why? and How?) and criticism.
5. Students read to answer the questions.
6. Discuss.
7. Go back to see which questions in the anthology or other sources they have not asked and discuss them.
Whenever I used this technique with my students, they became so involved in the novel or short story, that, frankly, they would not shut up. They were their questions and they wanted to know the answers. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to present articles of contemporary interest from professional educational journals for teachers of English at all levels, elementary, middle school, junior high school, high school and college.
Title: “When Teachers Talk and Students (Sometimes) Listen.” P. Sanders. English Journal (November 1974), 80-81. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: The author suggests that teachers develop a planned set of questions to ask students after reading a piece of literature instead of using the canned, scattershot questions from the anthology or other commercial sources that seem to have no plan or sequence.
Comment: I use an alternative to teachers' or textbooks' questions on literature. Have the students generate and answer their own questions.
Novel
1. Students read for five minutes near the beginning of the novel. What have they learned? What questions do they have? Record the questions using key words.
2. Students read for five minutes in the middle of the novel. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
3. Students read for five minutes three-fourths through the novel. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
4. Students read for five minutes near the end. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
5. Teacher and students organize the list of questions into questions of fact (can be answered in the text), questions of interpretation (Why? and How?) and questions of criticism.
6. The students read to answer the questions. They then discuss the answers to the questions.
7. Go back to see which questions in the anthology or other sources were not covered and discuss them. How many questions in the anthology did the students anticipate?
Short Story
1. Students read one sentence on each page or in each column. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
2. Students read one paragraph on each page or in each column. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
3. Students read the first sentence of each paragraph throughout the story. What have they learned? What questions do they have?
4. Teacher and students organize the list of questions according to whether they are questions of fact (can be answered in the text), interpretation (Why? and How?) and criticism.
5. Students read to answer the questions.
6. Discuss.
7. Go back to see which questions in the anthology or other sources they have not asked and discuss them.
Whenever I used this technique with my students, they became so involved in the novel or short story, that, frankly, they would not shut up. They were their questions and they wanted to know the answers. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to present articles of contemporary interest from professional educational journals for teachers of English at all levels, elementary, middle school, junior high school, high school and college.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Topic: Reading--Miscue Analysis
10-second review: Clinical diagnosis of reading difficulties.
Title: “Reading: You Can Get Back to Kansas Anytime You’re Ready, Dorothy.” Kenneth S. Goodman. English Journal (November 1974), 62-64. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English.
Comment: Excuse the cutesy title. I do not speak as an expert on miscue analysis. However, I think I have the ordinary secondary English teacher’s point of view. Miscue analysis, listening carefully to mistakes students make when they read aloud, has a large bibliography to support it. Essentially, students read individually to the teacher and the teacher records the types of mistakes the student makes and helps the students with strategies to learn to correct those mistakes. RayS.
Quote: “We learn to listen to what miscues a reader makes, what effect they have on meaning, whether the reader corrects when the meaning is lost or disrupted. We find the strengths that the miscues reveal and build on them. We teach for comprehension strategies, confirmation strategies, correction strategies.”
Comment: The key is strategies. If the student mispronounces a word, doesn’t recognize it, what can we teach the student to do about that? If the student reads orally, smoothly, but understands nothing, what can we teach students to do about it? If the student ignores punctuation and therefore loses track of meaning, what can we help the student do in order to see and use the punctuation to aid in meaning?
I don’t have any definitive answers to these questions, but I know what the problem is, and, together, the student and I can develop a strategy to help overcome these problems in comprehension. Note that I said this is a “clinical,” one-on-one, approach to reading problems. RayS.
Title: “Reading: You Can Get Back to Kansas Anytime You’re Ready, Dorothy.” Kenneth S. Goodman. English Journal (November 1974), 62-64. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English.
Comment: Excuse the cutesy title. I do not speak as an expert on miscue analysis. However, I think I have the ordinary secondary English teacher’s point of view. Miscue analysis, listening carefully to mistakes students make when they read aloud, has a large bibliography to support it. Essentially, students read individually to the teacher and the teacher records the types of mistakes the student makes and helps the students with strategies to learn to correct those mistakes. RayS.
Quote: “We learn to listen to what miscues a reader makes, what effect they have on meaning, whether the reader corrects when the meaning is lost or disrupted. We find the strengths that the miscues reveal and build on them. We teach for comprehension strategies, confirmation strategies, correction strategies.”
Comment: The key is strategies. If the student mispronounces a word, doesn’t recognize it, what can we teach the student to do about that? If the student reads orally, smoothly, but understands nothing, what can we teach students to do about it? If the student ignores punctuation and therefore loses track of meaning, what can we help the student do in order to see and use the punctuation to aid in meaning?
I don’t have any definitive answers to these questions, but I know what the problem is, and, together, the student and I can develop a strategy to help overcome these problems in comprehension. Note that I said this is a “clinical,” one-on-one, approach to reading problems. RayS.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Topic: Reading Remediation
10-second review: We diagnose students’ weaknesses in reading and then put the students into commercial remedial programs regardless of the results of the tests.
Title: “Reality Therapy in Reading: It’s What’s in People That Counts.” R Santora and L Jensen. English Journal (November 1974), 48-53. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “Sometimes teachers fall into a deceptively neat pattern of dealing with learning failures: we look for weaknesses in students and for solutions in [commercial] programs.”
Comment: Until the directed reading assignment has been conscientiously tried, I dismiss other approaches to remediation as quackery. Here are the steps in the DRA or Directed Reading Assignment, which can be used successfully in every subject with reading disabled students.
1. Build background knowledge. The more students know about the topic to be studied, the better they will comprehend what they read about the topic.
2. Pre-teach unfamiliar vocabulary.
3. Survey: Read the first paragraph, the first sentence of each intermediate paragraph and the last paragraph. The first paragraph introduces the main idea, the topic sentences of the intermediate paragraphs give the details and the final paragraph summarizes the main idea of the chapter.
4. After the survey, what questions do the students have? They read to answer these questions.
5. Students apply or extend the ideas they have gained through reading.
I repeat the statement from Olive Niles, a reading expert: If every teacher in every subject used the directed reading assignment, there would be no reading failures in America. RayS.
"English Education Archives" summarizes articles in past (pre-2008) English education journals.
Title: “Reality Therapy in Reading: It’s What’s in People That Counts.” R Santora and L Jensen. English Journal (November 1974), 48-53. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “Sometimes teachers fall into a deceptively neat pattern of dealing with learning failures: we look for weaknesses in students and for solutions in [commercial] programs.”
Comment: Until the directed reading assignment has been conscientiously tried, I dismiss other approaches to remediation as quackery. Here are the steps in the DRA or Directed Reading Assignment, which can be used successfully in every subject with reading disabled students.
1. Build background knowledge. The more students know about the topic to be studied, the better they will comprehend what they read about the topic.
2. Pre-teach unfamiliar vocabulary.
3. Survey: Read the first paragraph, the first sentence of each intermediate paragraph and the last paragraph. The first paragraph introduces the main idea, the topic sentences of the intermediate paragraphs give the details and the final paragraph summarizes the main idea of the chapter.
4. After the survey, what questions do the students have? They read to answer these questions.
5. Students apply or extend the ideas they have gained through reading.
I repeat the statement from Olive Niles, a reading expert: If every teacher in every subject used the directed reading assignment, there would be no reading failures in America. RayS.
"English Education Archives" summarizes articles in past (pre-2008) English education journals.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Topic: Listening
10-second review: Improving listening skills in conversation and discussion.
Title: “Repetition and Frustration.” JH Goelz. English Journal (December 1974), 45-49. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary; Teach students how to listen by having them learn to paraphrase what the previous speaker said before responding.
Comment: Common sense. A good reminder for teachers as well as students. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to feature interesting ideas from past English education journals.
Title: “Repetition and Frustration.” JH Goelz. English Journal (December 1974), 45-49. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary; Teach students how to listen by having them learn to paraphrase what the previous speaker said before responding.
Comment: Common sense. A good reminder for teachers as well as students. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to feature interesting ideas from past English education journals.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Topic: Questions
Ten-second review: On the use of questions in unexpected ways.
Title: "The English Teacher as Questioner.” RJ Nash and DA Shiman. English Journal (December 1974), 38-44. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Suggests that students at the conclusions of their essays, after summarizing main points, conclude with a question. Further suggests that teachers should conclude their classes with a question.
Comment: What a wonderful idea. Wish I had thought of it—and I wish I had used it in my teaching. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to feature interesting ideas from past English education journals.
Title: "The English Teacher as Questioner.” RJ Nash and DA Shiman. English Journal (December 1974), 38-44. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Suggests that students at the conclusions of their essays, after summarizing main points, conclude with a question. Further suggests that teachers should conclude their classes with a question.
Comment: What a wonderful idea. Wish I had thought of it—and I wish I had used it in my teaching. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to feature interesting ideas from past English education journals.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Topic: Censorship
10-second review: English departments must prepare a book, film and periodical selection policy in order to be ready for the censor.
Title: "The Students' right to Read (and Speak), Sources for Help in Formulating Policy." Thomas Tedford. English Journal (December 1974), 14-16. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: "In a recent issue of this journal, Ken Donelson reminds English teachers of the need to develop a departmental policy on the selection of books, films and periodicals in order to deal effectively with the censor."
Comment: An important task that is as important today (2008) as it was in 1974. RayS.
Title: "The Students' right to Read (and Speak), Sources for Help in Formulating Policy." Thomas Tedford. English Journal (December 1974), 14-16. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: "In a recent issue of this journal, Ken Donelson reminds English teachers of the need to develop a departmental policy on the selection of books, films and periodicals in order to deal effectively with the censor."
Comment: An important task that is as important today (2008) as it was in 1974. RayS.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Topic: Brief Summaries of Research Findings
Ten-Second Review. Topics: Goals. Direct Instruction. College Reading Classes. Literary Theme. Textbooks vs. Children’s Literature. Journals in Mathematics.
Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” R. L. Larson. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), 239-255. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Goals: “…confirms mismatch between the level of literacy preparation expected by employers in the state of Texas and what educators perceive to be important.” CEB Aulbach, p. 239. Note: These are simply brief statements of findings. They leave many questions unanswered. RayS.
Direct Instruction: “Examining the effects of direct instruction, indirect instruction and combined direct and indirect instruction, finds that direct instruction proved the most effective….”L.R. Ayres, p. 240. Comment: Students generally learn what you teach directly. RayS.
College Reading: “…faculty disagreed about the definition and purpose of college reading courses. M.G. Dimon, p. 241. Comment: I vote for teaching otherwise bright students how to study. RayS.
Literary Theme: “…reports that students were able to identify the literary theme of a story, especially when presented with the question, ‘What is the story really about?’ ” C.L Vali, p. 247.
Textbooks vs. Children’s Literature: “Comparing 2 sixth-grade classes’ posttest scores for a unit on Mexico, finds the group taught with children’s books showed significant gains in achievement as compared to the group taught with the textbook.” H.J. Jones, et al., p. 248. Comment: How about using both? RayS.
Journals: “Three-a-week journal writing during the last grading period of the year appeared to increase student understanding of mathematical concepts and teacher understanding of student difficulties.” ML DiPillo, p. 255. Comment: The use of journals to comment on content in courses makes a great deal of sense to me. I’m sorry I did not use this idea when I was teaching. I would now. RayS.
The purposes of this blog, "English Archives" is to provide interesting ideas from journals published in the past.
Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” R. L. Larson. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), 239-255. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Goals: “…confirms mismatch between the level of literacy preparation expected by employers in the state of Texas and what educators perceive to be important.” CEB Aulbach, p. 239. Note: These are simply brief statements of findings. They leave many questions unanswered. RayS.
Direct Instruction: “Examining the effects of direct instruction, indirect instruction and combined direct and indirect instruction, finds that direct instruction proved the most effective….”L.R. Ayres, p. 240. Comment: Students generally learn what you teach directly. RayS.
College Reading: “…faculty disagreed about the definition and purpose of college reading courses. M.G. Dimon, p. 241. Comment: I vote for teaching otherwise bright students how to study. RayS.
Literary Theme: “…reports that students were able to identify the literary theme of a story, especially when presented with the question, ‘What is the story really about?’ ” C.L Vali, p. 247.
Textbooks vs. Children’s Literature: “Comparing 2 sixth-grade classes’ posttest scores for a unit on Mexico, finds the group taught with children’s books showed significant gains in achievement as compared to the group taught with the textbook.” H.J. Jones, et al., p. 248. Comment: How about using both? RayS.
Journals: “Three-a-week journal writing during the last grading period of the year appeared to increase student understanding of mathematical concepts and teacher understanding of student difficulties.” ML DiPillo, p. 255. Comment: The use of journals to comment on content in courses makes a great deal of sense to me. I’m sorry I did not use this idea when I was teaching. I would now. RayS.
The purposes of this blog, "English Archives" is to provide interesting ideas from journals published in the past.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Topic: Writing and Revision
Ten-Second Review: No matter what teachers say about revision, if they emphasize surface-level changes, students will make only surface-level changes.
Title: “The Role of Classroom Context in the Revision Strategies of Student Writers.” Robert F. Yagelski. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), pp. 216-238. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: How define levels of revision? Four broad categories: surface changes, stylistic changes, structural changes and content changes. The author considers surface and stylistic changes to be “meaning-preserving” changes. “Structural” changes have to do with organization and “content” changes refer to meaning. The latter two appear to be what the author thinks to be “real” revision, and the first two to be superficial changes.
Teachers, perhaps almost unconsciously, emphasize superficial changes and do not emphasize organizational changes or changes in meaning.
Comment: I think this list of types of revision is helpful in defining “revision.” As I think about my own practices in revision, most of them do focus on the conventions—grammar, punctuation, usage and stylistic changes (eliminating unnecessarily repeated words, for example). In my own writing, do I change organization much? I might shift sentences and paragraphs occasionally and rework the topic sentences to make them clearer, but I always stay within the confines of “Tell them what you are going to tell them,” “Tell them,” and “Tell them what you told them.” I do often rewrite in order to clarify meaning. And, occasionally, my meaning will shift as I understand better what I am thinking while I am writing.
I don’t know if this list of levels of revision helps me help students revise more effectively. The problem continues to be, in my mind, defining revision. What I like about this list is that the author does not necessarily value the structural changes and meaning changes over the surface and stylistic changes. Rays.
Title: “The Role of Classroom Context in the Revision Strategies of Student Writers.” Robert F. Yagelski. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), pp. 216-238. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: How define levels of revision? Four broad categories: surface changes, stylistic changes, structural changes and content changes. The author considers surface and stylistic changes to be “meaning-preserving” changes. “Structural” changes have to do with organization and “content” changes refer to meaning. The latter two appear to be what the author thinks to be “real” revision, and the first two to be superficial changes.
Teachers, perhaps almost unconsciously, emphasize superficial changes and do not emphasize organizational changes or changes in meaning.
Comment: I think this list of types of revision is helpful in defining “revision.” As I think about my own practices in revision, most of them do focus on the conventions—grammar, punctuation, usage and stylistic changes (eliminating unnecessarily repeated words, for example). In my own writing, do I change organization much? I might shift sentences and paragraphs occasionally and rework the topic sentences to make them clearer, but I always stay within the confines of “Tell them what you are going to tell them,” “Tell them,” and “Tell them what you told them.” I do often rewrite in order to clarify meaning. And, occasionally, my meaning will shift as I understand better what I am thinking while I am writing.
I don’t know if this list of levels of revision helps me help students revise more effectively. The problem continues to be, in my mind, defining revision. What I like about this list is that the author does not necessarily value the structural changes and meaning changes over the surface and stylistic changes. Rays.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Topic: Writing Conferences
10-Second Review: The main idea of the article has to do with the roles people play in writing conferences, but specifically concerning the students’ not understanding the teacher’s use of terms in writing.
Title: “The Writing Conference as Performance.” Thomas Newkirk. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), 193-215. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Students are unwilling to ask teachers questions about the terms they use, and take for granted, concerning writing.
Comment: I think most of the problems students have in learning to write occur in the confusion over the terms teachers use concerning writing, whether on the students’ papers or in writing conferences. Teachers need to ask students what they understand about the terms teachers use. What do they mean, for example, by “unity,” “Awk.,” “clarify,” “details,” etc. Students might understand. Then again, they might not. Can’t hurt to ask. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is summarize ideas from past English education professional journals. The topics deal with all levels: elementary, secondary and college.
Title: “The Writing Conference as Performance.” Thomas Newkirk. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), 193-215. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Students are unwilling to ask teachers questions about the terms they use, and take for granted, concerning writing.
Comment: I think most of the problems students have in learning to write occur in the confusion over the terms teachers use concerning writing, whether on the students’ papers or in writing conferences. Teachers need to ask students what they understand about the terms teachers use. What do they mean, for example, by “unity,” “Awk.,” “clarify,” “details,” etc. Students might understand. Then again, they might not. Can’t hurt to ask. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is summarize ideas from past English education professional journals. The topics deal with all levels: elementary, secondary and college.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Topic: Emergent Literacy
Ten-Second Review: Children know much about reading and writing well before they are instructed formally in reading and writing.
Title: “The Sociocognitive Construction of Written Genres in First Grade.” Marilyn C. Chapman. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), pp. 164-192. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “The current paradigm for early writing is one of ‘emergent literacy,’ a paradigm that considers learning to read and write as interrelated processes beginning long before formal instruction. Emergent literacy research has helped educators recognize that children learn a considerable amount about written language when they are immersed in literate environments in which they have opportunities for observations of others using written language, for literate interactions with adults and for independent exploration of written language.”
Comment: Give young children plenty of examples of adults reading and writing with them and they will know quite a lot about reading and writing when teachers begin formal instruction. We knew that, right? Still, it’s good to be told again. We’ve always emphasized reading to children, but what about writing with children?
Note: I put “literate environments” in the above quote in italics. Now, I know what the author means: plenty of children’s books and magazines in the home, plenty of opportunities to write informally, reading to children, etc. But the definition of “literate” is a person who can read and write. Environments cannot do either. So I sent a letter to the then president of the NCTE, who had used the term in one of her articles, suggesting that the concept be labeled differently, so English teachers would not be criticized as illiterate. Boy, did she blister me. That told me, Do not criticize the Great Mahoffs of the NCTE. I never learned my lesson. I kept on doing it. And they kept on vilifying me. More about that later. It was kind of fun. RayS.
Title: “The Sociocognitive Construction of Written Genres in First Grade.” Marilyn C. Chapman. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), pp. 164-192. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “The current paradigm for early writing is one of ‘emergent literacy,’ a paradigm that considers learning to read and write as interrelated processes beginning long before formal instruction. Emergent literacy research has helped educators recognize that children learn a considerable amount about written language when they are immersed in literate environments in which they have opportunities for observations of others using written language, for literate interactions with adults and for independent exploration of written language.”
Comment: Give young children plenty of examples of adults reading and writing with them and they will know quite a lot about reading and writing when teachers begin formal instruction. We knew that, right? Still, it’s good to be told again. We’ve always emphasized reading to children, but what about writing with children?
Note: I put “literate environments” in the above quote in italics. Now, I know what the author means: plenty of children’s books and magazines in the home, plenty of opportunities to write informally, reading to children, etc. But the definition of “literate” is a person who can read and write. Environments cannot do either. So I sent a letter to the then president of the NCTE, who had used the term in one of her articles, suggesting that the concept be labeled differently, so English teachers would not be criticized as illiterate. Boy, did she blister me. That told me, Do not criticize the Great Mahoffs of the NCTE. I never learned my lesson. I kept on doing it. And they kept on vilifying me. More about that later. It was kind of fun. RayS.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Topic: Writing to Learn
10-Second Review: Empirical studies have shown what students learn from writing in social studies classes.
Title: “Writing About and Learning from History Texts: The Effects of Task and Academic Ability.” George E. Newell and Peter Winograd. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), 133-163. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “In recent years a series of empirical studies…suggest that writing can become a powerful means of rethinking, revising and reformulating what one knows.” p. 134.
Quote: “Writing in content areas (i.e., subjects other than English) must be perceived as a means for thinking, reasoning and arguing.” p. 161.
Comment: EM Forster: “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?” One answer to the question, “What does writing do for us?” RayS.
Title: “Writing About and Learning from History Texts: The Effects of Task and Academic Ability.” George E. Newell and Peter Winograd. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), 133-163. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “In recent years a series of empirical studies…suggest that writing can become a powerful means of rethinking, revising and reformulating what one knows.” p. 134.
Quote: “Writing in content areas (i.e., subjects other than English) must be perceived as a means for thinking, reasoning and arguing.” p. 161.
Comment: EM Forster: “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?” One answer to the question, “What does writing do for us?” RayS.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Topic: Does Teaching Matter?
10-Second Review: You need a combination of direct and indirect teaching.
Title: “From the Editor” (Sandra Stotsky). Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), 132. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “In essence, they [the articles in this issue of the journal] tell us that teaching matters.”
Quote: “These studies clearly indicate that active teaching influences how students learn to write or write to learn. They do not show students developing naturally as readers and writers as a result of informal conversations with peers or teachers in a literacy-rich environment.”
Quote: "…the physical arrangements of the classroom…the comments for their students about their writing, the different kinds of writing assigned to the students, a stress on both content and process, explicit guidance on matters of form, and lessons on skills. In sum, direct and indirect instruction were part of each teacher’s repertoire.”
Comment: A good, middle-of-the-road, commonsense approach to teaching writing. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas from English education journals from the past.
Title: “From the Editor” (Sandra Stotsky). Research in the Teaching of English (May 1995), 132. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “In essence, they [the articles in this issue of the journal] tell us that teaching matters.”
Quote: “These studies clearly indicate that active teaching influences how students learn to write or write to learn. They do not show students developing naturally as readers and writers as a result of informal conversations with peers or teachers in a literacy-rich environment.”
Quote: "…the physical arrangements of the classroom…the comments for their students about their writing, the different kinds of writing assigned to the students, a stress on both content and process, explicit guidance on matters of form, and lessons on skills. In sum, direct and indirect instruction were part of each teacher’s repertoire.”
Comment: A good, middle-of-the-road, commonsense approach to teaching writing. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas from English education journals from the past.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Topic: Goals of Visual Literacy Instruction
10-Second Review: Interpreting pictures and films.
Title: “ERIC/RCE Report: Visual Literacy.” Laurel Ladevich. English Journal (October 1974), 114-116. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “The goal of visual literacy, as suggested by Barley in A New Look at the Loom of Visual Literacy (p. 14), would be to enable students to learn to ‘read’ visuals with skill, to write with visuals expressing themselves effectively, to know the grammar and the syntax of visual language and be able to apply them, to be familiar with the tools of visual literacy, and to be able to translate from visual language to verbal language and vice versa. In other words, the ultimate goal of visual literacy is visual articulation.”
Comment: Italics in the previous quote are mine. I think expressing visual interpretation verbally and verbal language in pictures is the point. In other words, the students and we the teacher need to learn to compose in, and respond to, all types of media: words, pictures and film through pen/pencil, computer and camera.
We should not be thinking of composition solely as words, but should learn to compose with all other media, most especially in pictures, film and tape recordings (radio). RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to review interesting articles from past issues of English education journals.
Title: “ERIC/RCE Report: Visual Literacy.” Laurel Ladevich. English Journal (October 1974), 114-116. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Quote: “The goal of visual literacy, as suggested by Barley in A New Look at the Loom of Visual Literacy (p. 14), would be to enable students to learn to ‘read’ visuals with skill, to write with visuals expressing themselves effectively, to know the grammar and the syntax of visual language and be able to apply them, to be familiar with the tools of visual literacy, and to be able to translate from visual language to verbal language and vice versa. In other words, the ultimate goal of visual literacy is visual articulation.”
Comment: Italics in the previous quote are mine. I think expressing visual interpretation verbally and verbal language in pictures is the point. In other words, the students and we the teacher need to learn to compose in, and respond to, all types of media: words, pictures and film through pen/pencil, computer and camera.
We should not be thinking of composition solely as words, but should learn to compose with all other media, most especially in pictures, film and tape recordings (radio). RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to review interesting articles from past issues of English education journals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)