Many voices- plus Codeiro

-How Cordeiro connects to Anderson

"Dora's teacher talked and listened to children's explanations of their children's explanations of their own thinking," writes Cordeiro. Bringing us back to Anderson's pseudo-concepts, Cordeiro agrees that children have reasons for what they thing and that their reasons should be considered and addressed.


-How Cordeiro and Keil connect.

Keil and Cordeiro have similar viewpoints: Kiel argued that kids learn from exposure to language and Cordeiro argued that kids learn from experience with language, specifically writing. Neither advocate a lot of direct teaching.


-Cordeiro and Jennifer

Cordeiro sheds a lot of light on why fragments are such a complex problem is student writing. She shows how discerning where a period goes, and what compromises a clause are not cut-and-dry concepts. Who knew that defining a sentence could be so hard?


-And Colleen's thoughts

There seems to be a lot of exploratory learning going on is Dora's classroom. Would kids really discuss what they are learning and how to do it properly? Maybe it's because I was homeschooled, but I find the idea of students having period pow-wows odd and idealized. I don't know...

Dora's teacher seems to let her try and hypothesize instead of showing her the way periods work. There are good arguments for teaching this way, but I've never been entirely comfortable with it.

I was extremely frustrated by Codeiro's summary of a situation where young writers are using fragments. She focuses on the fact that the erroneous punctuation enhances the meaning of the sentences. That's a valid point. However, these writers didn't intentionally break the rules: they were lucky. The sentences, in fact, are grammatically incorrect-the writers were incapable of following the rules. Instead of pointing out how the fragments are happily effective, Codeiro should be teaching these students. Young writers are not aided by being left with an incomplete understanding of English. This haphazard teaching is like praising the fact that a swimmer is fast and not addressing the fact that her form sucks. In the long run, she will suffer from the neglect. Rules may be meant to be broken, but first a writer has to know the rules. Besides...it's more fun that way.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So...It took me forever to change this up and play with sentence variety. First I edited and it ended up being more concise-not what I wanted. I finally looked up dashes and colons again and discovered that they are used to add emphasis: that was useful in those last paragraphs. I switched the order of a few sentences, such as, "The sentences, in fact, are grammatically incorrect-the writers were incapable of following the rules." I'm finding that as I try to add colons, dashes, and sentence variety other devices such as questions, italics, and ellipses are sneaking into my writing. Maybe this is because I already know how to use them. Colons and dashes are still a pain. They feel unnatural. They are hard to fit into my writing rhythm (which is also being changed). I feel a bit punctuation claustrophobic right now, to tell the truth.

Kiel Creates Confusion

Jane Kiel tells us that direct instruction in grammar and spelling is more or less useless. Now I have to reevaluate. Does Kiel's position negate all of Jeff Anderson's charts and schemes? If you revamp something that doesn't work, what do you get? I suppose he still has the "in context" thing going for him. Does spelling and grammar instruction not work because schools are stuck on the worksheet style. If Kiel had looked at research on Anderson's classroom, would there have been a difference? My mind is now going in circles.

Do the rules really help? Kiel doesn't think so. She says that readers rarely remember and apply the rules. Kiel also points out that English is full of exceptions. So then, do I even bother with Anderson's posters? Grammar rules are at least more constant that spelling rules. Do kids not remember because it's not helpful or because we are teaching rules so haphazardly?

Kiel carefully takes us through language development showing us the process. I wish she had stressed how un-uniform language learning is. Everyone goes through the same basic processes, but it still is going to look very different. Just because you understand one toddler doesn't mean you'll understand another one. They all have their own idiosyncrasies, and all learn at different rates. It bothers me that Kiel makes it sound so cut-and-dry. Students are not going to arrive at our classrooms and simply fit into a language stage box.

Kiel goes through the areas of vocab, spelling, and syntax, showing that direct instruction doesn't seem to be at all effective.

Kiel stresses how much we learn naturally, making it seem like no language instruction is necessary, only language exposure. We learn most things naturally . All babies progress from babbling to talking, and from crawling to walking through exploration. I don't think we spend much more time teaching kids to walk than we do to talk. But it's still legitimate to coach kids in track and not assume that they will naturally continue to progress and become great sprinters. Is writing any different? Isn't there a point where natural learning needs aid from good coaches? I know that my progress with dashes and colons is going to be aided tremendously by looking up the rule and being coached along. Maybe I would have eventually understood and incorporated them without this class, but I doubt it. Some degree of coaching seems legitimate.

What my mom did that I know helped was not make me look up every word I didn't know. Only occasionally would I be told to look things up in the dictionary. Usually I'd make a surmise or ask and she would define it for me. Being given that free, easy access to language, really did help. If there's no evidence that it helps, there's no way I'm going to waste time making kids miserably write down spelling and vocab words.

I am conflicted about everything now!

(I used an exclamation point and dashes.)

punctuation is a powerful enemy

Is it a sign that I'm becoming English-teacher-woman if I think this is humorous?

http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com/

ch 3&4

There were a lot of things in this chapter that could bring out. At first, I had trouble finding points. Now, however, I've had coffee and I magically have a lot to say. First I have two asides to get out of my system.

1. Colleen's Story
Last week I had to review two journal articles for another class. The first one I picked was about helping kids edit their work. I was fascinated with how marvelously it correlated to principles in Mechanically Inclined. After typing up my review, I started on the citations and finally noticed....same author. Kudos to my so very observant self.

2. It frustrated me how much rambling and extra content there was in these chapters. What do bullying and "when I was little" stories have to do with teaching mechanics? It felt like he was taking us through his whole day to show the 6 things that he did to teach grammar. Maybe this is providing context, but I found myself lost in all the context and distracted from the point. Interesting ramblings are still ramblings-I say as I ramble on.

Okay. Now come the main points.

I love that Anderson validates students by telling them to write about what they know, and showing them how that's done with the I/eye and "when I was little" exercises. I think it's easy to assume that students are being lazy or stubborn and in turn not treat their fears and problems as legitimate. As the first chapters showed, students have legitimate reasons for what they think, their pseudo-concepts. Effective teaching is going to acknowledge and validate their processes as learners. I appreciate being given tools to do that.

Anderson's layouts for journals is exceptional. I corrected student journals during a practicum this summer and let-me-tell-you: page numbers are a good idea. The students were supposed to title and date their entries; "supposed to" being the key phrase. It was so hard to tell where one entry ended and another began. Also, leaving one page blank is great for editing and commenting. How useful is it to be able to put editing lessons right in the middle of everything instead of giving grammar its own special section where it can be handily avoided? Yay for practical ideas! Happy. Happy. Happy.

My final point is that I am skeptical and confused about the writer's pallet. How would it be used exactly? I don't feel like Anderson spelled it out for us. While good writers do appreciate that make-your-eyes-mouth-and-mind pop phrase, I'm not sure that having kids collect lists of them is a good idea. As Anderson says, 50% of what we say is take from somewhere else (18). Humans are natural plagiarists. Written lists of "good writing" seem like setting young kids up for trouble to me. And how and when does he prompt his students to collect these phrases? I'm confused about the whole idea. Perhaps we can discuss it in class.

All for now.

Maturity:Some Thoughts About Variety

I looked over my papers for errors, but all my commas were where I wanted them. Flipping the pages back and moving into the deep, dark interior of the old paper, I found my teacher's comments. "Use transitions-Could be more developed." she wrote. There was nothing about punctuation. I was puzzled. I know I make errors. I know that I have occasional trouble with tense and awkward sentences here and there. But there were nothing glaring at me. All was sterile and safe.

I thought: As a writer, what am I unhappy with about my work? Then I realized: I am bored. My sentences usually start with a subject and are followed by the verb. I don't ramble. My academic writing is plain: "When people change, they must trade old values for new values." Budum-ching. So exciting. My informal writing is worse: "Yesterday one of my professors had us do an exercise to get to know one another. We all drew questions and split into pairs to ask each other. It's a pretty familiar drill." The writing goes on like that with subject and verb tirelessly following one another over and over again. My writing gets the job done, but is childlike and sometimes boring. When I compare it to my peers' work, I feel like I'm at ball where everyone else is in ruffled satins while I'm in bluejean overalls.

How did my writing get this way? I love a simple piece of writing. I like the poetic pauses of short sentences. My writing is clear and functional and a good model for the seventh graders that I dream of teaching. If they can all write simple, relevant sentences, I will be happy. Also, I think I've been influenced by journalism and the journalistic style of writing that is present in our society. I love modern writers who create fresh uncluttered art, and am frustrated by Edgar Allen Poe's gross overuse of dashes. However, I think I've overdone the simplicity. While I will probably always write more simply than most of my peers, hopefully I can do that in a way that is mature and well-developed.

Alright then. How do I make my writing more mature? I probably could start by using grown-up punctuation, such as colons, semicolons, dashes, and parenthesis. I freely admit that I think I understand semicolons, but I am so unsure of the others that I never add them to academic writing. I believe that they would help embellish my writing, giving it some of the vim that I'm looking for. That's step one.

Acording to owl.english.purdue.edu in order to achieve sentence variety, one should have different lengths of sentences and vary the sentence beginnings ("Sentence Variety"). Sadly, this means that some of my beloved short sentences need to be combined and that I should find some new phrases to use at the beginning of my sentences. That is step two.

Lastly, I would like to see a little more description in my writing. Perhaps putting a few details here and there wouldn't kill me. I think I can manage a simile or two. Since sometimes the details are the best parts, it's a shame for me to leave them out. That's step three-more details and description. My problem is lack of variety in my sentences. My solution is three strategies: experiment with different punctuation; change sentence lengths and beginnings; and add description. Let's see how it works.


Works Cited

Purdue OWL, "Sentence Variety." The Owl at Purdue. 27 MAR 2008. Purdue University.Sep 2008 .

chapter 1 and 2

Colleen is reading...

The introduction is engaging and well-written. Colleen takes this as a good sign. If the author of the introduction is worthwhile, the author of the book often is as well. Good introductions are very happy things.

The idea of "pseudo concepts" catches Colleen's attention, reminding her of her first experience with MLA. With MLA, in-text citations are put after the quotation and before the period that concludes the sentence. Example: She continues "How we perceive, what we know, what we experience, and how we act are the result of the symbols we encounter in the world"(Foss 3).

Colleen’s previous understanding of grammatical rules conflicted with this new MLA formatting. She had learned that the period always goes inside the quotation marks. So, despite the professor’s careful demonstration, Colleen messed up the MLA formatting on her papers. She would look at the handbook and decide that it just couldn’t be correct. Colleen remembers the professor’s frustration and attitude which said, “How many times do I have to show you this?” He was unaware that there were reasons beyond laziness at work. Pseudo concepts are hard to detect, but the answer to the, “How-many-times-do-we-have-to-teach-this?” question should be: As many as it takes. As future teachers we have to make sure that it’s the students who are shirking from the work of learning and not us.

Correct-alls don’t work? Colleen thinks, remembering that she learned a lot from correct-alls and direct teaching of grammar and its rules. She thinks some more. It was frustrating to correct 20 mistakes and but be docked for the additional 3 mistakes that were hiding in the piece. Did she learn grammar from the rules or from constant reading? She probably either learned entirely from reading or she learned enough from reading that she was ready to encounter grammar rules and see how they worked.

The author’s points seem to be solid. Colleen is interested to see exactly where the book goes from here.