Chapter 8: Notebooks and Journals

Chapter 8 of Amy Benjamin’s Writing Across the Content Areas introduces the concept of across-the-board journals. These are student writing projects that require two or more teachers of different content areas to work together to help students create interdisciplinary journals. In these journals students make entries which tie together ideas or concepts which are related, even though they’re part of the different course curriculums. The goal of these journals is to encourage students to make connections between the content of different classes and to synthesis those themes into journal entries within a single notebook. 

In my opinion this is an ambitious proposal because it would require extra planning and coordination by the teachers of different content areas. Not only would these teachers need to meet to coordinate common themes within their curriculums, but they would need to agree on a common rubric and decide how assessments would be done and by whom.

I found this to be a very provocative idea, one which would really challenge students to think and to realize how knowledge is connected. Obviously its more work for teachers, so getting teachers onboard would be job one. If one did succeed in getting teachers to sign on I think the journal would be an exciting project for both the students and the instructors.

If I was going to initiate an across-the-board journal program I think I’d frame as a treasure hunt for interconnected knowledge. Everyone likes a hunt or a puzzle to solve. The puzzle here would be to figure out which concepts, ideas, knowledge, historical events, scientific phenomena, literature, etc., are related.

Setting up the curriculum might be challenging, but it could be a fun. For example, perhaps the history class is learning about the life of Ben Franklin, while the science class is learning about electricity, at the same time the English class is reading early American publications, such as Poor Richard’s Almanac. Or maybe the history class is learning about WWII, while the science class is learning about the discovery of mid-ocean ridges and the theory of tectonic plates. (There is a connection, but it takes a little digging.) 

I think students would enjoy looking for the connections within different content areas. The writing up of those connections within the journals would promote critical thinking. This is a great idea, hopefully someday I’ll be able to give it a try! 

Cheers! Michael Kaas

Chapter 7 Research Papers and WebQuests

Chapter 7

Research Papers and Webquests, Nov 8, 2012

I have to admit that I've never been taught the dos and don'ts of writing a formal research paper, so I needed this chapter! Again Benjamin offers clear, logical, structured advise. I liked her suggestion on how to focus a paper by first deciding what specific question it will address.   

After laying out about the differences between analytical and argumentative research papers, Benjamin takes us though a litany of considerations from style guides: different types of notation used for the different types of papers, to the rules of formal writing: no contractions, a third person perspective, paragraphs with topic sentences, no bullet points, etc. 

Since I'm studying to be a science teacher I was most interested in her thoughts on scientific research papers. She points out that science research papers differ from humanities research papers in that the former often includes, "posing a hypothesis, recording results, and drawing conclusions." I'd also add creating charts and graphs to that list. 

The information in this chapter is useful, but I can't help but wonder what percentage of New York City high school students will ever write a formal academic research paper? I have another class I'm currently taking at Brooklyn College that requires me to go to different city high schools and observe classes being taught. I was at one the other day and I can attest that the last thing the teachers there were concerned about were teaching students the rules of formal writing.   

The students at this school just weren't at that level. I don't mean to sound judgmental, but unfortunately, from what I've seen, a whole lot of NYC high school students are not going to be writing formal research papers anytime soon. That doesn't mean teachers shouldn't try to teach them how to write, but it does mean that teaching formal academic writing is not going to be high on the list of priorities in NYC public schools. 

Interestingly, Benjamin does address my worry that formal writing assignments may be over the heads of many students. She says if students are given assignment that are too difficult for them they may become discouraged, and that this could lead to plagiarism. I agree that teachers need to gauge writing assignments to the abilities of their students. 

Benjamin goes on to lay out the how writing assignments can build in complexity. The idea here is that no matter what's the student's level, a teacher can still find an appropriate writing assignment that brings the him or her a little closer to the goal of being able to write a formal research paper.   

Finally, I really liked the section Benjamin offered on WebQuests. I wasn't familiar with WebQuests but I went to the website and they look great! I definitely can see myself directing students to this resource in the future. Cheers!   

Chapter 6

Oct 31, 2012

Benjamin chapter 6, Organizers: Frames, Clusters and Stems

I think the ideas presented in chapter 6, regarding how to organize writing assignments and how to write different types of paragraphs, will be particularly useful for science teachers. Organizing and categorizing information can help kids understand complex systems. Having a concept of what type of paragraph they want to write, and a structural knowledge of how to write it, will help students avoid turning in jumbled, unorganized writing assignments. 

The chapter starts discussing the ideal pattern for a category defining paragraph. We're told that the student needs to state the main category in its first sentence, then lists the subcategories and then briefly synopsizes the subcategories. This kind of writing exercise could be useful in earth science. We might assign students to write a paragraph summing up the different parts of the Earth’s interior. Here’s an example of what an assignment like this should look like: 

“There’s four distinct layers in the Earth’s interior: the inner core, the outer core, the mantle and the crust. The inner core is in the center of the Earth and is made mostly of nickel. Its solid and very hot, about 5430 degrees C. Next is the outer core, its also mostly nickel, but its molten. The largest layer comes next, its called the mantle, its solid but some of its rocks very slowly move or “flow” due to convection. The uppermost layer is the crust. Its relatively thin and cold in comparison to the other layers.” 

The chapter also talks about how to write a paragraph which compares and contrasts. This kind of paragraph is useful as well, though I was a confused about how and when to use semicolons, as they're not a punctuation mark I use much. 

The chapter takes us through a number of different types of paragraphs which all have different purposes. Although some of the advise is common sense, its still useful to specifically consider these different types of paragraphs, they include: descriptive paragraphs, chronological paragraphs, paragraphs which make assertions, and cause and effect paragraphs.  

Benjamin likes to focus of sentence stems. I had not previously heard of sentence stems, and again they seem a bit common sense to me, but they might be useful to a student who is really struggling. I think a science teacher could certainly make use of the suggestions in this chapter, particularly if students are handing work with organizational problems. Going over one or two of these examples prior to giving a writing assignment would no doubt be helpful to many students. 

October 23, Benjamin's Chapter 5, Vocabulary: word for word

As a future Earth Science teacher I found Benjamin's chapter on vocabulary particularly useful. There's a good deal of scientific vocabulary germane to my field, and Benjamin offers comprehensive strategies for helping kids gain ownership of these specific words. I particularly liked Benjamin's suggestion of writing two sentence definitions, with the first sentence emphasizing the facts, (left brain oriented), and the second sentence drawing a comparison, or using the word in a descriptive way, (right brain oriented.) 

The idea of engaging both the right brain and left brain in writing a single definition is brilliant. I'm wondering if the same idea couldn't be used in other writing assignments? So often in science we're focused on just the facts, (left brain.) But could there also be a place in a scientific writing assignment for imagination, whimsy, and creativity? It seems that Benjamin would argue that if you can use both the left and right brain in learning, the retention of the information and concepts is improved. She doesn't offer any real evidence that this is true, but it certainly seems logical to me.

Teaching specific vocabulary could be done in a number of ways, The basic assumption, that by learning a new word students also are learning a concept, makes sense. Benjamin breaks down definitions and offers a step by step approach to writing them. I'm not sure her formula has to be followed to a tee, but certainly its nice to have a clear understanding of a successful approach to teaching the writing of definitions.  

Regarding using vocabulary in lessons, I could conceive of unit on astronomy, for example, starting with the introduction of a list of vocabulary words such as: black hole, big bang theory, brown dwarf, virgo supercluster, extraterrestrial life, elliptical orbit, astroid field, magnetic field, solar nebula, galaxy, solar wind, corona, accretion and gas giant. Some of the students might have a vague idea of what some of these terms mean, but I think most wouldn't. The unit then could be an exploration to uncover the meanings of these words. This might be a different way to teach a unit, but it could work, and I think by focusing on words, we pinpoint and clarify ideas.    

I felt Benjamin's list of verbs, though interesting in theory, were less useful in practice. Do we really need to separate verbs from nouns? Although her idea of the importance of verbs is provocative I think teaching the noun "convection," works just as well as teaching the verb "convecting." 

In conclusion, I agree with Benjamin that teaching vocabulary is important. Not only does it help a student write, but it helps a student understand the major concepts that he or she is studying. As teachers we need to put some time and effort into helping students make new field-specific vocabulary part of a growing lexicon.  

Benjamin's Chapter 4, Stort Statements, Oct 16, 2012 

Benjamin makes a succinct case for concise writing, and she provides plenty of useful tips and examples along the way. (Even now as I write this I'm wondering how to make sentences denser with meaning!) 

I love that Benjamin's gives us examples of wordy, inefficient writing, then points out the inherent problems, and re-writes the paragraph. Teaching by example works! Benjamin leads us through different types of writing assignments: the brief bio, contrast and comparison statements, and sentences that show cause/effect. She spotlights common writing mistakes and instructs us on questions of grammar such as how to properly use colons and semi-colons. (Never has anyone taught me when to use a colon or semi-colon, so this was a true revelation!) 

I think these suggestions are valid and that these types of writing errors will continually arise in the classroom. I'm hoping to teach earth science and I'm sure there will be plenty of badly organized, wordy assignment, essays, journals, observations, and the like, which will come across my desk. 

But do Writing Across the Curriculum programs intend science teachers to teach the use of semi-colons or not? I would love some clarification on this. Perhaps this is a question that is best asked your principal or school administrator. 

In my opinion not all of Benjamin's suggestions are useful. Her lists of action words seem a bit forced. Am I really going to post a list of action words for my students to keep in mind while their writing a paper or report? Other ideas, such as making an informational diagram or chart of what you know, before beginning to write, makes sense. 

I believe the goal of this chapter, this book, and this course in general, is to make future teachers aware of the kinds of mistakes we're likely to encounter, and to instruct us on how to straighten out those mistakes when they occur. By making teachers better writers, there's an improved chance that students will get meaningful writing instruction across the content areas. 

- Michael Kaas

Oct 9, Amy Benjamin's Chapter 3, Making the Case,

In chapter three of “Writing in the Content Areas,” Benjamin identifies a number of common writing mistakes made by students and then offers useful tips for fixing them. Benjamin teaches by example. She offers samples of weak writing, points out the problems inherent in the paragraph, and then shows how the paragraph should be rewritten. (This is a terrific technique which I think teachers should mimic!)  

A common mistake students make is not including enough detail. Benjamin teaches instructors how to spot generalities and then coach students get specific, by including dates, statistics, technical terminology, names, and other details. I loved this chapter! It made perfect sense to me and I could really see how adding specifics and avoiding vague generalizations improved writing. 

I did have some questions though. Benjamin suggests that instructors should be teaching lessons on how to use prepositional phrases, the difference between ordinals and comparatives, and how to make branch diagrams to display relationships. All this is great, but I wonder if an Earth science or math teacher has the time needed to teach grammar? 

Maybe this is now the job of all teachers, and if it is, that’s great. I’m just a little surprised that non-English content teachers are being asked to teach basic grammar, but I do understand the WAC program’s argument as to why its important.  

Chapter three points out that essays can differ in what they’re trying to accomplish, and that essays can persuade, inform, and show cause and effect. Benjamin also encourages teachers to have students learn subject specific vocabulary, and she offers numerous tips such as keeping a lookout for ambiguous words like “it,” and avoiding redundancy. 

I’ve said it before, but this book is making me a better writer. I’m not sure if I will really remember all of Benjamin’s writing tips and be able to use them someday when I’m teaching, but if all teachers embraced these suggestions American’s students would no doubt benefit greatly.     

Oct 2, Amy Benjamin's Chapter 2, Guiding principles for teachers

This week's reading brought the half full/half empty glass dichotomy into the classroom. Benjamin's deficit model of teaching is the half empty glass with the teacher focusing on students' mistakes. Conversely, Benjamin's resource model suggests teachers look first for the strengths found in a student's writing, with grammatical mistakes demoted to less important. This made total sense to me. 

Benjamin also dismisses as unnecessary many traditional writing rules like, never end a sentence with a preposition and never start a sentence with a "but" or "so." I also prefer informality in writing, and I think its all about just getting kids to write, period. Egregious mistakes should be noted, but I'm not sure you need to take off for them in content areas other than English. 

I'm studying to be an Earth Science teacher. I suppose that if a scientist is writing a research paper for publication formal english is used. But when he or she writes lab reports, scientific journals and observations, the writing is informal. I think science teachers should embrace informal writing as long as the rule bending isn't egregious. 

I'm taking a meteorology course this semester at Brooklyn College and every week the instructor assigns a good deal of written homework. I know what's he's doing. He's promoting learning by writing, and its working. The homework he gives is all essay questions and I think he knows that by making us write out the answers it helps us learn the material. He's not concerned with the grammar or if we're finding the right tone, as long as we answer the questions correctly.

My point is that my instructor is using writing assignments to help us learn science, but he's seems unconcerned about how we write. Would I model a class of my own on his teaching methods? Yes I would. Its great to have a powerful, witty of amusing writing style, but in some fields like science, style just doesn't matter much. 

Benjamin's chapter 2 also offers a ton a great advice, from how to turn long-winded paragraphs into dense powerful writing, to how to focus writing assignments. Its great, and I feel I'm not just learning how to teach writing, I'm learning how to be a better writer myself. 

Blog #3, On Ann Raimes’ writing errors essay

Ann Raimes’ essay titled, Errors: Windows into the Mind, contends that teachers sometimes misinterpret the root cause of spelling and grammatical mistakes made by their students on writing assignments. The articles goes on to offer a variety of practical strategies that teachers can use to help students learn from their mistakes. 

Its a very practical essay giving specific examples of the kinds of problems that arise and offering advise on how to handle them. After being exposed to a good deal of education theory recently, it was great to get some practical advise from an experienced teacher like Raimes. But I couldn’t help but wonder if her advise was a bit dated? 

The essay is dated, December, 1991, so I presume that it was first published more than 20 years ago. A lot has changed in 20 years. My guess is that many, if not most, middle school and high school students are now writing their assignments on computers loaded with spelling and grammar correcting software. I wonder how these kinds of software programs are changing the writing process for students?

For example, I'm writing this essay on a mac application called Pages. Pages does more than just automatically spell check, it also underlines passages in green that it believes to be either grammatically incorrect or overly wordy. When you hover over the green underlined phrase with your mouse the word processing program offers suggestions on how to fix or improve you sentence. I wonder if these kinds of word processing programs help or hurt students? 

I have a young friend who says she’s a terrible speller because she grew up after the arrival of spell check. She’s not alone, many kids of her generation are bad spellers because they’ve never had to learn to spell, spell check programs demotivated them. So are spell check programs bad or good? I believe a good case could be made either way. 

Of course advanced word processing programs like Pages aren’t going to structure an essay for a student, or decide on its content. (At least not anytime soon.) So students will still need to learn to write. But I’m curious whether teachers are finding a decrease in simple grammatical mistakes, and if so, if its due to word processing software? (Pages just told me that I shouldn’t have started my last sentence with the word “but,” but I’m going to do it anyway!) 

Someday soon advanced word processing programs may correct all kinds of writing mistakes instantaneously. How will that effect teachers? More importantly, how will it effect students? Its certainly something to think about, and perhaps something to talk about in class. I’d love to hear some opinions as to the value or dangers of spell checking and grammar correcting software.   

Blog for week 3, Bazerman and Elbow readings. 

Both of this week's readings had to do with the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) program in America. The first essay by Bazerman chronicles how WAC gained momentum in American education, it also explains some of the reasons why writing has increasingly been accepted as a vital vehicle for learning. 

  

WAC's seemingly simple premise, that we learn better when writing is involved, makes perfect sense to me. It also makes sense that english classes shouldn't be the only place where students learn to write, that every instructor of every subject should be demanding assigning writing. 

Bazerman talks about how an important aspect of the WAC  program involved getting teachers to write themselves, and to embrace the idea that something magic happens when one writes. I could see how a science teacher or a math teacher might resist this idea at first, but the arguments made in the second reading, as to why writing helps students learn, are convincing. 

In the second essay Peter Elbow points out how we've traditionally viewed learning. He says we've assumed input (reading) had to precede output (writing.) He then describes how in kindergarten classes kids are actually able to write before they can read. 

As a father of two elementary school children I've seen proof of what the author asserts. My girls have written several short books, with very bad spelling, but none-the-less comprehensible, before they could read. 

The idea of writing before you read may seem counterintuitive, but there's applications that come to mind. For example, instead of starting a unit on the solar system with a chalk and talk, why not assign an essay where students write what they know about each planet in the solar system? 

An assignment like this not only gets them writing, but it helps them come to realize how little they know. This hopefully will pique their interest in the subject. 

The writing exercise will also inform the instructor of prior knowledge and misconceptions that the students may have. Another essay on the same subject at the end of the unit can then provide students with proof of how much they've learned. 

On a personal note, I relate to the WAC philosophy because I've often noticed that information sticks in my brain better when I write about it. I'm delighted that programs like WAC are being embraced by educational policy makers. I think these two articles did a great job of explaining something I've always intuitively believed, namely, that writing engages, stimulates and personalizes learning. 

- Michael Kaas

Blog entry # 1, Sept 11, 2012

In this blog entry I'm going to briefly discuss two different education related essays. The first essay I'll comment on is, "Teach New Worlds/New Words," by Bell Hooks. 

While reading this essay I had a visceral reaction to it. Not only is this a very powerfully written piece, but it challenged many assumptions I had about the english language. I grew up learning what was, "bad english" and what was, "good english." Ms. Hooks challenged those labels and presented an explanation of why as to why segments of the American population don't speak standard english, which I had not considered. 

Hooks begins by quoting a poem that refers to standard english as, "the oppressor's language." I had never considered that people might refuse to speak standard english as a form of rebellion against those who oppress them. Hooks writes in a passionate style and although I didn't fully accept her arguments as fact, I still found her main thesis compelling. 

Hooks asserts that English has been used in this country to dominate the weak, the minorities, and specifically the Black community. She points out that Black slaves were forced to replace their native languages with their oppressor's, and that whites used standard english as a form of control. Hooks says, "they make it (standard english) a weapon that can shame, humiliate, colonize."  Hooks goes on to claim that as a response African-Americans developed their own vernacular version of english as a form of resistance, and as a way to reclaim their personal power. 

The biggest problem I had with the essay was that Hooks states her opinions as facts, and then fails to give proof to back up her claims. Hooks also doesn't state whether she believes this morphing of the english language was done consciously or subconsciously. Are we to assume that the early Black community in America consciously decided to disregard the rules of english grammar as an act of rebellion? Or was it an unconscious act? The author's failure to address this question weakens her argument since we're left to guess to what degree this transformation of the language was intentional or accidental. 

Hooks says, "For in the incorrect usage of words, in the incorrect placement of words, was a spirit of rebellion that claimed language as a site of resistance." I think this contention is plausible, but in all of American history is there no journal, no oral history, or any evidence at all left behind by those who helped create the black vernacular that this was indeed their intention? If not, then what is the proof of Hooks' claim? Did she just make up her argument from thin air? If we assume that Hooks believes that this rebellion took place unconsciously, then we must accept that she has great psychological insights, since she must be able to make statements about the subconscious workings of people she's never met and who are long dead. 

For me the value of the essay is that it made me reconsider how the forced acceptance of a language can be seen as a form of control and repression. Many Americans believe that those who don't use standard english do so out of ignorance. Hooks' contention that the creation of a black vernacular was a cultural choice does seem plausible when it is considered in a historical context. This essay will definitely change the way I view the english language. 

The second essay I'd like to discuss is, "Social linguistics and literacies: ideologies in discourses," by John Glee. This is a fascinating essay takes the reader on a surprising journey into the world of linguistics. Glee talks about how there is a story that we believe behind many words, and that the story that a word conveys is important. He claims that we as a society actually negotiate the meanings of words and that they have social and economic consequences. For example, what we accept as the meaning of the word sausage may affect what we end up eating. 

Glee covers a lot of territory in the essay. One of his most provocative assertions is the difference between how white america views black vernacular english and how linguists view it. He asserts that by breaking rules of english grammar the black vernacular in some cases actually improves the language's ability to communicate meaning. This is an idea that I found surprising, since I like many American felt breaking grammatical rules had no intrinsic value. 

Glee also says, "a change in a non-standard dialect, since it makes the non-standard dialect different from the standard, may enhance its ability to signal identification with a "local" community." This makes total sense to me, as it seems apparent that a common dialects can bind people together and help them to form a tighter group than they would otherwise have. Glee also states that, "both standard and non-standard dialects are marvels of human mastery. Neither is better or worse." This too was a new idea for me. 

What I would say to Mr. Glee though is that although non-standard english may not be worse than standard English, it is less useful if you want to get a good job in America and is usually a liability. I used to be a TV producer for CBS News. I once produced a story about an academy for underprivileged inner-city children. One of the classes offered was called, "speaking green." The idea was that speaking black vernacular english was fine, but one needed to be able to speak standard english as well. This is because standard english is the language of business, and if one wants to make money in America, one is going to have a much lower success rate if one can only speak black vernacular english, aka AAE, or ebonics. 

Certainly there are exceptions. If one is a rapper speaking AAE or black vernacular english is expected. But the exceptions are few. Glee argues that this shouldn't be the case, that the idea of "bad english" is wrong. He makes good arguments, but his arguments don't change reality. The reality is that if you can't speak standard english, (in addition to your local dialect), you aren't going to get a good job in corporate America, period. 

Should this be the case? I feel certain that Mr. Glee would argue that discriminating against people because the don't speak standard english is wrong. He may well be right. But teachers and students need to be realistic and its unlikely that American business is going to change its cultural model concerning ebonics or AAE anytime soon.

Thus I'd contend that speaking standard english in America might be seen as a prerequisite set by most employers. It well might an unjust rule, an unfair rule, and maybe an unwise rule. But employers, like society at large, asks people to conform to many different rules. Those who don't want to conform to these rules are usually not forced to, but they're far less likely to economically succeed than those who do. That's why I'd be willing to wagger that you'll never in your life hear our president speaking in the black vernacular. 

Friday, August 31, 2012

First entry of the blog. Actually this is just a test to see how this works. I haven't blogged before but I'm looking forward to it. Happy labor day!