As a student that has finished countless amounts of projects and papers that did not interest me whatsoever, I have taken to looking upon the multimodal approach as possibly the best technique to engage students. Sadly, this approach was never used while I was in school. Upon reading the article by Shipka, I was taken aback by the depth of the engagement that students took upon themselves and the level of creativity they exhibited. When Shepka explains “students approach this objective by contextualizing it in ways that are of interest or importance to them” (286) I immediately imagined the peaked interest of students that may have previously been turned off by a strict prompt. When the teacher hands students a prompt that explains how to do a project, what the teacher is looking for, how to research information, and what information must be included, student creativity is effectively turned off and they begin to look at what the teacher wants to see from them rather than what they themselves would like to create. This strict prompt can therefore dissuade students in taking a creative approach to projects and will therefore stunt the student’s interest in the project at hand. This makes a project that the teacher wants rather than what the student wants.

The biggest part of the multimodal approach that I see as effective is the very beginning of the process in creating a project. Not only is there value in the information the student presents, but there must be greater emphasis put on the information that the student chooses to present and how they present it. Rather than a teacher telling the student that they must have A, B, C, and D included in their project, students must thoroughly research their topic and realize what is important to relay to the audience. What goes hand in hand with this realization of important information is the way in which students choose to present it. This step is backed up by the write up that students must complete that explains each and every decision that was made in the process of the project; giving reasons why a particular medium was chosen and what purpose it serves in comparison to other mediums.

My blog post would never be complete without playing the devil’s advocate with the ideas at hand. The concern is addressed in Shepka’s writing but I think it is important as a future teacher to realize that this is not the typical approach to assignments in our school system (at least that I have seen). While I agree that the multimodal approach is by far the best for engaging students in a level of depth that is unrivaled by the essay or group projects, I also have to be wary of student frustrations. Most students have never taken this approach and a much deeper thought process is needed to find success in this method. I think it would be important to set up individual meetings with students in order to keep them on track and keep positive in their efforts. I could see how students that previously have written only essays or finished three sided poster board projects could be discouraged with this innovative approach, often not knowing where to start.

Having gone to a private Catholic high school I am no stranger to the conservative mindset. Yet what I didn’t realize was the influence that this institution had on my writing structure and thoughts on literacy. Upon beginning Wiley’s article I was confronted with ideas about formulaic writing that we have begun to debate heavily during class time and that were previously drilled into my head throughout my years in school. These ideas seemed to look like a good starting point to scholarly writing as teacher’s expectations usually coincide with the structure of a topic sentence that then introduces a quote, which will then be backed up and related back to the thesis with analysis of said quote. This is the way that I learned to structure essays and it has helped me to make my way through school with relatively good grades.

What was odd for me was that, as a writer of some skill I have both moved past the strict 5 paragraph essay that I was taught in high school relatively quickly and have begun to find my own authority in writing even with strict prompts. But what about those students that were never comfortable with writing to begin with? Are we all born with an enjoyment for writing that is either fostered by great teachers or squelched by institutions?  Whether their disdain for writing comes from previous bad experiences/grades in school, lack of interest in essay topics, or just an inability to express their thoughts onto paper, it is obvious that some students just do not like writing. Obviously the correct course of action would be to get to children when they are young and first learning to write, encouraging the use and authority of their personal voice and giving a wide variety of subjects that will peak the interests of most all students instead of one essay topic choice on a book they didn’t have anything to say about in the first place. But what happens when we are dealing with an 18-year-old kid that has had countless years of negative reinforcement who is now in college and already despises writing?

When the school system is looking for specific requirements of their students it seems like we as tutors should cater to what will get them through the system and out of the realm of academic writing as effectively as possible. I am all for having students explore writing outside of the sphere of formulaic writing, yet some of the students in these English 30 workshops can barely keep a single coherent theme throughout their two page paper. This is where I would argue Wiley’s 5 paragraph essay could be used as a rough template to show students that writing is not an impossible task. While I would not argue for the strict and regimented system that Wiley sets up in terms of amounts of sentences, words, paragraphs, and quotes, the 5 paragraph method may help struggling writers find a formula that brings their ideas together in a cohesive manner that will be recognized by their professors.

Though the argument I pose seems to say that “It is too late for these students. Simply push them through the system with this formula that stifles creativity,” I would emphasize that the 5 paragraph essay would be used as a way to organize thoughts after an initial writing process has already taken place.

Well situated learning is quite the read… It’s actually not that bad once you have a discussion in class and can piece together your own ideas of legitimate peripheral participation with the rest of your peers. When reading through the first chapter of Situated Learning I was struck by the idea that the author’s viewpoints creates, “a fundamental distinction between learning and intentional instruction. Such a decoupling does not deny that learning can take place when there is teaching, but does not take intentional instruction to be in itself the source or cause of learning” (40-41). It is hard at times to separate the ideas of learning from the context of a classroom as opposed to learning in real world scenarios without someone lecturing at you. This quote made me realize the obvious yet elusive idea that learning is much more than what you pick up from being in a classroom all day. Though it seems obvious that learning would happen in everyday life without verbal instruction or homework, most minds would pair the words “learning” with “schooling” and cease to delve deeper into the idea. I like that Situated Learning makes a point to separate and differentiate between the institution of school compared to the general act of learning; leaving us future teachers to feel like we are still needed despite the constant criticism of the standards based institution of education.

After reading the books first chapter, then attending a tutoring/workshop session, I saw evidence of a contextual community within the educational system. While the general claim is that “the organization of schooling… is predicated on claims that knowledge can be decontextualized” (40), these English 130 classes are basing their grading on the context of writing papers for a scholarly setting. By creating this context of academia, we cannot help but to assume students are at the level of writing that is at an acceptable level for the professor’s standards. Sadly, because many students will emulate a professionals writing style, they give up their creativity and unique voice due to their lacking in contextual knowledge of the field. Instead of participating with established professionals of respective fields, we are reduced to copying others until we believe we have enough knowledge or degrees to stake any new claims or write in an original voice.

 

 

As we push into the third week of school (already?!) I get more excited about helping out freshman with their future writing in my workshop section. After having attended 2 of these workshops already, I can more easily understand Rodby and Fox’s text in relation to these remedial English classes we are working in. When I enter the room at 9am Monday and Wednesday, it is obvious that the students do not wish to be sitting in this class that counts for nothing. Rather than viewing this workshop as a helpful tool to improve their writing skills, receive peer feedback, and inevitably improve their grades, the students obviously see this class as one that only requires an empty shell of a human in the seat to be marked as present on a roll sheet. While this lack or care or involvement could come across as depressing to the workshop instructor, she holds her own and reiterates that this workshop is solely for the student and their betterment. I think that this approach is extremely effective due to the fact that even just observing two days of this class, I have seen the students go from shut down to interested in receiving help with assignments that could be difficult or confusing.

While I found the Rodby and Fox article interesting, the Bartholomae piece was much more intriguing to me. Throughout my college career I have had to write numerous papers for a multitude of subjects, each time trying to present my case in a way that is tailored to both the subject and the professor. Where Bartholomae seems to look down upon the idea that students are thrust into unfamiliar settings of discourse (having to write in the role of professionals in that field), I think this push into the unknown can help to bring students up to the challenge of writing at such a level. At the same time, I realize that the emulation of professionals and their works does not foster creativity or originality. As the students in GE classes do not feel like authoritative writers, their work therefore ends up turning out like a teacher telling the reader (who probably has more knowledge about the subject at hand) what to think, rather than someone of authority who is unafraid to delve into an analysis of the subject at hand.

Another interesting point is made when Bartholomae claims, “A writer has to “build bridges” between his point of view and his readers. He has to anticipate and acknowledge his readers’ assumptions and biases. He must begin with “common points of departure” before introducing new or controversial arguments” (9). I have recently encountered this as I read both “The End of Faith” and ” The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris. Speaking on the points of religion Harris is extremely diligent in his attempts to predict and counter the arguments that will be brought up by those who disagree with his views. By stating the biggest possible flaws in his ideas and then quelling them, the writer attempts to reach the reader and ease their transition into a more positive or understanding viewing of his presented ideas. As I recognize this concept now, I will be sure to structure my essays in a way that will “build bridges.”

 

The Deapool image below gives an accurate representation of how I feel when receiving papers back from my upper division GE courses that expect me to be proficient in APA and to write scientific papers as an English major.