The two readings in a way where counteractive to one another. Both, do support the same overall idea but the approach in lesson is different. One softly touches on the subject while the other elaborates more on it. In The Popularity of Formulaic Writing, the article briefly touches on the Jane Schaffer Approach. It was a formula designed to help students develop well constructed papers. However, this idea did receive major criticism as it seemed that the idea was not encouraging exploration. But nowhere in Schaffer’s formula did she say not to explore, there was just a structure to help and be used if needed. But somewhere along the lines of translation, there has been confusion as to whether use the formula fully and faithfully in order to do well with writing papers. I do believe that there are students who will use the formula and keep it on the back burner of their mind, but not live with it. While there are others who will use the structure for the rest of their lives. Both is fine, everyone has a different method and needs to find theirs that they think work best and help them the best, I don’t see anything wrong with that. But I do think that after the formula is introduced, more teaching needs to take place.
That’s kind of where the second article comes into play. Teach Writing as Process Not Product does not touch base or mention Schaffer’s idea but it touches base on the overall use of writing products and not using process. Murray discusses that when teachers teach composition they are not teaching a product, they are teaching a process. And once the realization of teaching a process comes into effect, then there needs to be a design of curriculum made. But not to forget, that process can work to produce a product. They both go hand in hand, and need to work together. The article then further discusses the importance of discovery through language, exploration of what we know and what we feel, process of using language to learn our world, and implications. The article also suggests to teach unfinished wiring. I feel that the second article (this one), kind of dives in deeper on creating language and using voice to develop a paper that is more personal and not generic and not so structured. Helps with tips to still create a valid paper that will still earn a good grade even if there is no “formula” being followed. But in a sense, there is a formula with the implications. It just opens up more exploration rather than saying how a paper should be formatted and written.
Both of this week’s readings had to do with the process of writing and the best ways to teach said process. Mark Wiley’s The Popularity of Formulaic Writing (And Why We Need to Resist) warns against the popular but dangerous (to a writer’s education, not their health) “formulaic” writing process. Wiley states that it is due to the immense pressure on schools and teachers that formulaic writing has become so popular; this writing, which follows a “formula” to teach students how to write essays, is well-received by teachers because it makes it easy to teach large amounts of students how to write a piece that, academically, passes standards. (i.e will score well on standardized tests, the holy grail of education systems.) The formula Wiley chooses to focus on is the Jane Schaffer approach/formula, which teaches that body paragraphs are to be arranged as follows:
This approach does make it easy for students to learn and understand how to write an essay, and while I do see how it could help many students, I also chafe at its strictness. Wiley argues the same, stating that while this approach is helpful to students at first, it ultimately leaves them too dependent on this structure and unable to really think in their writing. Once again, students are writing what they know the teacher wants to see (in this case, the Schaffer approach) and not expressing their own thoughts. Wiley believes that instead of being taught as strict formulas, structures like this should be taught as strategies, and students should be taught many different strategies to use so they can make their own decisions about which would work best for different situations. This would make their writing stronger (since the point of writing is communication and different communications require different strategies) and also their thinking about writing stronger, as they themselves have to consider which strategy to employ.
Donald Murray’s Teaching Writing as Process Not Product delves further into the idea of how to teach writing. He does not make mention of formulas but instead suggests that teachers stop grading student writing as literature/product and start instead helping them learn the process of writing. I agree that the process of writing needs to be focused on in schools, and I also agree with many of his implications, however, I don’t think Murray is quite aware of the pressures and circumstances placed upon teachers, especially those not in higher education. Murray states that none of his implications requires special training, special schedules, new materials, an increase in funding, or a change in teaching load…however, he does not acknowledge how teachers will, with their class sizes and limited time, put into practice any of his ideas. We’ve been talking a lot about how, despite the benefits of things like portfolios and comments and one-on-one conferences regarding writing, teachers simply do not have the time to do that with all of their students. It’s different in a college setting, yes, but students are taught, fundamentally, how to write academically not in college but in elementary, middle, and even high school.
I agree with the ideas presented in both articles, and they also mesh very well with my earlier discussion about creativity in writing education and how best to help students develop their creativity. However, it’s clear that in order for English education to change, the education system as a whole needs to change as well.
Once again I find that I’ve somehow come to expect too much from scholars who can’t seem to deliver on their promises.
Both “The Popularity of Formulaic Writing (And Why We Need to Resist)” by Mark Wiley and “Teaching Writing as a Process Not Product” by Donald M. Murray criticize formulaic writing, but then fail to provide a tangible alternative. Wiley contends that formulaic writing (like the Schaffer approach) can be one strategy among many used to teach writing, but never provides examples of these other strategies. And Murray straight up says, “None of these implications require a special schedule, exotic training…What they do require is a teacher who will respect and respond to his students…”. What an oversimplification of the process of teaching the writing process. Just listen to your students and they will magically learn to write!No other strategies needed!
While both readings fell short of my expectations, they each did so in different ways. Let’s explore how, shall we?
“The Popularity of Formulaic Writing (And Why We Need to Resist)” by Mark Wiley
Wiley starts off with an accurate description of all the challenges that teachers face, which led me to the false assumption that if he understood what we’re up against, he was going to provide viable solutions. He did not.
I definitely agreed with his critique of the Schaffer Approach, and I honestly cringed when reading about what it entails. Having students actually count words, sentences, and paragraphs is HUGE waste of time, there’s no mention of how to evaluate quality over quantity, and there’s no “next step” provided by the Schaffer Approach, rendering it basically useless unless what you actually want is for your students to become dependent on the only writing formula they think they’ll ever need. I was also surprised to find out that this approach was geared for 9th and 10th grades, because it’s description seems much more like an introductory writing method, suited perhaps for elementary or middle school students.
After he rightfully criticizes the Schaffer Approach, Wiley says that “students must develop a repertoire of strategies for dealing effectively with various writing tasks presented to them in different situations” and they must also “make choices about genre, content, structure, organization, and style.” He explains that students need procedural and conditional knowledge to question how to accomplish tasks and when to make particular choices. And then he gives exactly zero suggestions for how to teach students to do this.
“Teaching Writing as a Process Not Product” by Donald M. Murray
Murray starts off his essay with a pretty accurate metaphor of literature as something we conduct an autopsy on, making it impossible to produce live writing as an outcome. He also writes about writing in a rather poetic way, explaining that writing is the process through which we discover the world around us. And then he proceeds to disappoint me, just like Wiley.
I will say that one thing I appreciated was his breakdown of the writing process time frame. If you had asked me which of the three stages took the longest amount of time, I would have said either writing or rewriting. I was surprised at his claim that prewriting should account for 85% of the writing process, but his explanation of exactly what the prewriting step encompasses made me rethink my preconceptions about it. If the 85% is accurate, then most teachers and students don’t spend nearly enough time in the prewriting stage as we should.
However, Murray then fails to provide any concrete suggestions for how to accomplish the writing process in a non-formulaic way. He also contradicts himself in his list of implications by waffling back and forth on the writing timeline. First he claims there should be no timeline, then he says students must adhere to deadlines, and then he backtracks and says that the deadline should be the end of the marking period, which is absolutely ridiculous. The thought that students should only be working on one major writing assignments for the entire marking period is unrealistic, especially when Murray also says that drafts shouldn’t be graded. Most teachers are required to have a minimum number of assignments in their gradebooks each marking period, and they have to vary in weight. (Also, students will not complete work that isn’t graded.)
What I’m left with after reading both of these essays is a sense of frustration. Neither author provided solutions to the problem they identified, and what little advice they did provide isn’t applicable in the modern classroom.
Two very different pieces in a myriad of ways. Retratos Vivos de Mama is a beautiful piece that is so intimate through not just the words and thoughts within, but the way it is presented. I read what I could in Spanish and translated where needed.
There is something so powerful in the ways emotions flow between languages and the differences. I remember a friend whose second language is French said that reading French authors in their mother tongue , reading words meant to be in French, is a different experience than reading it translated. There is power in words, something we have all echoed throughout this semester. I think we have seen this sentiment of the power in language with Melanie and Xinyu’s works, but I think it is very prevalent here as well in a different way.
How to Rob a Bank is such a fun piece. It is really ambiguous and there is a lot of reading between the lines. It is extremely interesting to think about Electronic Literature that is heavily influenced by technology in a way we haven’t quite seen yet. In a way that is a reflection of where ELit will progress.
This piece is probably the one I can relate to the most. As a student, I think my writing was affected by this. Then I was constantly trying to write for the teachers mind and not my own. I also struggled and stressed over making things super perfect for these reason. If I had control over my writing I probably would have a solid voice and would have grown a lot more.
Honestly, teachers are absolutely bias, which is not always purposeful. I like to think I try really hard to be objective just for the sake of letting my students think, feel and grow. This makes me think about all the students I have the claim they ” don`t know what to write”. Maybe its not that they don`t know how to write but simply don`t know how to think for themselves enough to get started.
The question is… is this something we can even change and if so how? Is it rooted too deep?
This piece is probably the one I can relate to the most. As a student, I think my writing was affected by this. Then I was constantly trying to write for the teachers mind and not my own. I also struggled and stressed over making things super perfect for these reason. If I had control over my writing I probably would have a solid voice and would have grown a lot more.
Honestly, teachers are absolutely bias, which is not always purposeful. I like to think I try really hard to be objective just for the sake of letting my students think, feel and grow. This makes me think about all the students I have the claim they ” don`t know what to write”. Maybe its not that they don`t know how to write but simply don`t know how to think for themselves enough to get started.
The question is… is this something we can even change and if so how? Is it rooted too deep?
I started out with the article, which gave a refreshing outlook on remixing and its various modes. The first mode of “remix” that came to mind were collages. I recently started making some during quarantine using some of LIFE Magazine’s most famous photos and, when I started making them more frequently, it started bothering me that I was using other people’s work. Afterwards, I decided to pick up my own camera and use my own photos to make my own collages. Looking back, I wonder why it bothered me so much to use someone else’s work to make it my own? I think, possibly, because those photos were so famous and the stories that came with them were as well, it made me feel bad about tearing that apart. I also think I was craving to be ~original~ and stand out from other types of collages I’ve seen, but remixing made it feel less like that.
Now, I’m less concerned with these things because I will pick up any photo from anywhere and I guess I’ve just learned to be comfortable and more concerned with the story and approach I’d like to focus on.
It’s interesting that the Brannon article discussed a similar idea to remixing, but in a classroom setting. They claim that, in that sense, it’s a form of appropriation. Teachers are quick to take authority over a student’s work, without the student’s consent, due to the built-in hierarchical teacher-student relationship in the classroom.
While, yes, it typically is true and almost inevitable, I think it’s harder to deconstruct that issue than Brannon makes it out to be. They suggest asking the writer & the reader the same three questions to ignite discussion, which will lead to revision. I do agree that intention and revision should be the focal point in reviewing student’s works, but it’s never that linear.
We’ve discussed the setbacks and resolutions of these issues and it typically comes back to the teacher’s lack of time to commit to one-on-one conferences for every student, or the lack of genuine interest in peer editing. In a perfect world, yes, these are solutions that would alleviate the problem. But, as we’ve stated briefly before, it’s time consuming and can seem unrealistic. This is probably why it’s unapproachable and hard to convince teachers to entirely adopt these methods.
However, on a lighter note, here is my #IAmFrom piece from last week!
Linked are my reaction paper and my presentation for my discussion lead topic, feedback and creativity in student writing. I look forward to presenting!
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.” Yogi Berra #iamfrom & #whyiwrite #iamfrom – I am from loss. When cancer steals away children and hearts fail long before their time. I am from loss, but more importantly, I am from the love that makes loss so painful. #whyiwrite […]
Thoughts On “How Remix Culture Informs Student Writing & Creativity” by Antero Garcia
I found Antero Garcia’s article on remixing really interesting because I’ve always had mixed feelings about remixing in terms of authenticity and quality, and this text suggested a new way of looking at remixing, and also helped me figure out the reason for some of my hesitancy towards it. It also provided, in my opinion, a great definition of remixing (“the process of making something new from preexisting materials”) which I don’t know if I’ve ever seen stated so simply, yet effectively.
First off, I had never really considered fanfiction as a form of remixing, and after reading this article, I think that’s because I see a very distinct line between fanfiction and other forms of remixing, such as with music or retellings of classic literature, and that line is profit. Fanfiction holds a special place in my heart because the fanfiction community is drawn together by their shared love of something. They dedicated hours of their lives writing and reading stories based on their favorite characters for the pure fun of it. No one is in it for the money, because there isn’t any money in fanfiction writing. In a way, fanfiction is remixing in its purest form, because no one is doing it for profit.
But those exceptions are where I start to have mixed feelings about remixing, because that’s where the line between fanfiction and “real” fiction gets blurry. There are, of course, a few exceptions where fanfiction becomes “real” literature and turns a profit, such as Fifty Shades of Gray, which was originally Twilight fanfiction. But since this example in particular is so fraught with issues (poor writing, a dangerously inaccurate portrayal of the BDSM lifestyle and what consent should look like, a source material that romanticizes abusive teenage relationships, etc.), it should raise questions of authorial authenticity and what makes quality literature. But instead, it became hugely popular and led to an equally questionable movie franchise.
What it comes down to is this: I think people who create remixes assume that the general public is smart enough to recognize a remix and judge it on its own merit, but unfortunately, I’ve encountered way too many people who prove this isn’t true. For example, here’s an argument I had with my cousin Nicole’s aunt Toni last year, when we were brainstorming possible names for Nicole’s unborn baby girl. It went something like this:
Toni: I think you should name the baby Ophelia.
Me: You want Nicole to name her baby after a Shakespearean character who literally goes insane and then drowns herself?
Toni: No, she took a potion so it only looked like she drowned herself, but she was still alive.
Me: Are you confusing Ophelia with Juliet?
Toni: No! Ophelia drinks the poison and pretends to drown, and then escapes the castle and runs away and gives birth to Hamlet’s baby.
(At this point I start gaslighting myself, thinking Have I somehow misunderstood the entire plot of Hamlet?)
Me: That is not what happens at the end of Hamlet. Ophelia is dead. Almost everyone is dead.
Toni: No, you’re wrong! That’s how it happened in the show!
Me: Wait, what show?
Toni: Ophelia! On Nexflix!
Me: Have you…ever actually read Hamlet?
Toni: No, I just watched it on Netflix.
Me:
After I explained the actual plot of Hamlet, and that the Netflix show Ophelia is a reimagining of what could have happened in Hamlet (but very much did not), Toni said, “Well, they shouldn’t be able to do that. It should be illegal to change it and not tell anyone.” I told her the producers at Netflix probably assumed the general public was smart enough to realize it was a reimagining, and not just a movie version of the original. She obviously didn’t like the insinuation I made. (This was a proud moment for me because I’ve disliked her for years. She starts tons of unnecessary family drama and she’s the kind of person who never admits she’s wrong. It felt good to knock her down a peg in front of the whole family, and if that makes me a bad person, so be it.)
I want to clarify that personally, I love remixes. I’ll read any modern-day adaptation of Pride and Prejudice that I can get my hands on. Retellings of fairy tales like CinderellaIs Dead or Cinder are always on my TBR list. And I’ve seen some great student projects based on remixes, like a class of my 10th graders one year who, after reading Othello, filmed “modern” versions of specific scenes, including one that was a spoof of The Office and another that included gender-bending the main characters. Students love coming up with alternate or extended endings to the books we read, or rewriting scenes from a different character’s point of view.
I guess what it really comes down to in the end is that Garcia’s article helped me finally realize that it isn’t the remixes themselves that I have a problem with. Rather, my issue lies with people who cannot consume remixes responsibly. When it comes to our students, I think teachers do a great job of incorporating remixing into our writing curriculum, and I think the younger generation actually has a pretty firm grasp on remixes as a genre. It’s the adult population who needs a refresher course of Remixing 101.
Thoughts On“On Students’ Rights to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response” by Lil Brannon and C. H. Knoblauch
While I can certainly appreciate the point that Brannon and Knoblauch are making in this essay, I think it fell short because they didn’t offer enough viable solutions to the problem they identified. Their main argument is that in order for students to think their writing is being taken seriously and to give them the incentive to keep improving, teachers should focus more on how/if the students met their own writing goals, as opposed to the assignment set out by the teacher. It’s an interesting approach, but in today’s day and age, there’s more cons to this method than pros.
Pros
Multi-draft writing opportunities – I do agree that more teachers should be using this method. This approach is the difference between being a writing instructor vs. a writing coach. An instructor just grades a single draft and is done with it; a coach offers feedback and opportunity for improvement.
The suggestions for the types of questions a teacher can ask to help students realize where their work falls short are a good strategy.
Cons
The authors suggest there is a “middle ground” between the conservative and liberal approaches to teachers grading writing that they describe, but they don’t do a good enough job of defining what that middle ground actually looks like.
Poor examples – The authors use a sample student “essay” to illustrate their point, but I wouldn’t consider that an essay by today’s standards. Writing from the p.o.v. of the prosecutor would be more of a creative writing assignment, not an essay. This brings us to the next con…
Written almost 50 years ago, the scenarios described here aren’t all applicable to a modern-day English class. Teachers are required to use detailed rubrics to grade student work. Failure to provide a rubric can result in low observation scores, as well as battles with parents and students over grading. Allowing the kind of writing described here, where students rather than teachers decide on the parameters of their writing, is a logistical nightmare, especially if students also become responsible for creating their own individual rubrics.
Too many questions are left unanswered. How many drafts do you allow students to write? How do you grade a final submission that still fails to meet state standards and teacher expectations? And finally, since evaluation should only occur “after [the student has] decided that their writing is finished and ready to be evaluated,” what happens if a student never gets to that point? The confines of modern-day grading periods are simply not conducive to such a lengthy, potentially endless writing timeline.
