Swisco Closet Door Hardware
2 years ago
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Precis Response
Both readings the Precis respond to seem to make it clear that literacy involves adjusting your reading and writing style to meet the assignment or situation. Some people may have a more difficult time in classes that involve math and science because they have no interest in the material while others may thrive in the knowledge of these such classes. Literature classes on the other hand may be more relevant for others. I believe in all instances the main word that keeps coming up in regards to literacy is "motivation" what makes you "want" to the assigned work, for some unfortunately nothing and they drop out of schools, yet for others it is a passion they cannot explain and a desire to succeed that keeps them going forward with their literacy skills.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Precis Posting
Haas, Christina. "Learning To Read Biology: One Student's Rhetorical Development In College." From Written Communication11.1 (1994): 43-84.
I am going to do my best to try and find a way to explain this reading. I didn't find it informative, interesting, or relevant. It was one of the most boring reads and of course, I got stuck with it. I guess saying it was "irrelevant" is a little harsh, but I don't know... like Susan said, sometimes we just don't like what we read and we should be honest about it... "Learning To Read Biology" was an article about a student named Eliza. Christina Haas followed Eliza for the first four years of Eliza's college career, trying to understand how one's readings are "done" and how they may or may not be important to the reader (I think). I was lost at "At the college level..." (which is the first sentence of the article!!!).
Educators argue that "in order to understand, use, and judge scientific content- students need a meta-understanding of the motives of science and scientists and the history of scientific concepts(359). Haas wanted to see how Eliza interpreted the texts she was reading. Her freshman year "understanding the book or 'what the book says' was paramount at this point..." (363). Notice she says "the book;" she never mentioned the author of the books motives or intentions.
As the years passed, Eliza's texts were no longer "autonomous objects, but manifestations of scientific action and human choices" (367). At this point, what the author said was no longer equivalent to what the book said. She paid more attention to the "rhetorical elements of discourse- authors, readers, motives, contexts, etc..." (368). But it is believed that it was because of the types of textbooks that she read that she began to get different "results" from her readings. When the texts involved her subject (Bio) or her interests, the readings invited or required different strategies, goals, and views of discourse than previous readings.
It's obvious to see that we learn how to read different subject matter as our schooling progresses and that we read differently the texts that pertain to us more. This is what I got from the reading, and I don't know if it's completely accurate; I just know that I didn't like it.
THE END =)
I am going to do my best to try and find a way to explain this reading. I didn't find it informative, interesting, or relevant. It was one of the most boring reads and of course, I got stuck with it. I guess saying it was "irrelevant" is a little harsh, but I don't know... like Susan said, sometimes we just don't like what we read and we should be honest about it... "Learning To Read Biology" was an article about a student named Eliza. Christina Haas followed Eliza for the first four years of Eliza's college career, trying to understand how one's readings are "done" and how they may or may not be important to the reader (I think). I was lost at "At the college level..." (which is the first sentence of the article!!!).
Educators argue that "in order to understand, use, and judge scientific content- students need a meta-understanding of the motives of science and scientists and the history of scientific concepts(359). Haas wanted to see how Eliza interpreted the texts she was reading. Her freshman year "understanding the book or 'what the book says' was paramount at this point..." (363). Notice she says "the book;" she never mentioned the author of the books motives or intentions.
As the years passed, Eliza's texts were no longer "autonomous objects, but manifestations of scientific action and human choices" (367). At this point, what the author said was no longer equivalent to what the book said. She paid more attention to the "rhetorical elements of discourse- authors, readers, motives, contexts, etc..." (368). But it is believed that it was because of the types of textbooks that she read that she began to get different "results" from her readings. When the texts involved her subject (Bio) or her interests, the readings invited or required different strategies, goals, and views of discourse than previous readings.
It's obvious to see that we learn how to read different subject matter as our schooling progresses and that we read differently the texts that pertain to us more. This is what I got from the reading, and I don't know if it's completely accurate; I just know that I didn't like it.
THE END =)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
precis #3
Angelica Lopez
Prof. Boland
English 329
March 3, 2009
Précis #3
In the reading from “Inventing the University”, Bartholomae addresses the issues that many basic writers have. Bartholomae goes over many examples of written essays in order to show where the students are lacking. He begins by saying that students “have to invent the university by assembling and mimicking its language, finding some compromise between idiosyncrasy, a personal history, and the requirements of convention, the history of a discipline” (pg. 511). When asked to write about a specific topic the student must be able to speak the language of his/her audience. The author points out that it is difficult for students to do this. It is difficult for students to switch from their everyday language to academic language. Other characteristic slips that basic writers have are taking on the role of the speaker. Sometimes students take on the role of a teacher; the student speaks from a higher status point of view. This is what creates the problem of audience awareness. The student either speaks to his audience as “in the privileged language of university discourse—or, in default, he can speak to us as though we were children, offering us the wisdom or experience” (pg. 514). The writers should be able to switch from an insider and outsider point of view. Many writers are not aware of the knowledge of their audiences. Bartholomae believes that beginning students need to learn “to extend themselves into the commonplaces, set phrases, rituals, gestures, habits of mind, tricks of persuasion, obligatory conclusions” (pg. 516) in order to write in various branches of the academic community.
As a student/basic writer I feel like I’m dealing with some of the same problems that Bartholomae addresses in the reading. Of course my writing has improved over the years but it’s still difficult to reach “academic” conclusions at the end of my papers. In high school I felt like my teachers just expected me to memorize other than comprehend. I believe that this is one of the principal issues in the secondary classrooms. Students also have difficulty attempting to write in academic language. At the middle school that I work at teachers have developed sentences which they call “academic language”. When doing certain assignments the students are asked to answer with an “academic language” sentence. I think this is a great way to introduce the kids to the transition of everyday speech to academic speech.
Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Cushman, Ellen. et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 511-524.
Prof. Boland
English 329
March 3, 2009
Précis #3
In the reading from “Inventing the University”, Bartholomae addresses the issues that many basic writers have. Bartholomae goes over many examples of written essays in order to show where the students are lacking. He begins by saying that students “have to invent the university by assembling and mimicking its language, finding some compromise between idiosyncrasy, a personal history, and the requirements of convention, the history of a discipline” (pg. 511). When asked to write about a specific topic the student must be able to speak the language of his/her audience. The author points out that it is difficult for students to do this. It is difficult for students to switch from their everyday language to academic language. Other characteristic slips that basic writers have are taking on the role of the speaker. Sometimes students take on the role of a teacher; the student speaks from a higher status point of view. This is what creates the problem of audience awareness. The student either speaks to his audience as “in the privileged language of university discourse—or, in default, he can speak to us as though we were children, offering us the wisdom or experience” (pg. 514). The writers should be able to switch from an insider and outsider point of view. Many writers are not aware of the knowledge of their audiences. Bartholomae believes that beginning students need to learn “to extend themselves into the commonplaces, set phrases, rituals, gestures, habits of mind, tricks of persuasion, obligatory conclusions” (pg. 516) in order to write in various branches of the academic community.
As a student/basic writer I feel like I’m dealing with some of the same problems that Bartholomae addresses in the reading. Of course my writing has improved over the years but it’s still difficult to reach “academic” conclusions at the end of my papers. In high school I felt like my teachers just expected me to memorize other than comprehend. I believe that this is one of the principal issues in the secondary classrooms. Students also have difficulty attempting to write in academic language. At the middle school that I work at teachers have developed sentences which they call “academic language”. When doing certain assignments the students are asked to answer with an “academic language” sentence. I think this is a great way to introduce the kids to the transition of everyday speech to academic speech.
Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Cushman, Ellen. et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 511-524.
weekly response
I finally finished my field observations yesterday.
The topic about motivation really stirred up my mind. Sitting in the classroom yesterday really helped me see how much kids lack motivation. The teacher even asked a student "what motivates you? because the kid was close to having an F in the class. When asked the student just stared at the teacher. Once the teacher asked "are you just being lazy? because i dont think your dumb" the student nodded YES. I also see this at the school that i work at. The kids that have F's are mostly just lazy. Ive sat with a few ONe on ONe and they manage to do their work. They are very intelligent but just need someone sitting next to them telling them to do their work every 5minutes.
The teacher that Im observing bases his lectures on the California Standards. The standards is the first thing that he announces in every single period. The pages that we read on the California standard on thursday also created some questions for me. Why do they state that a person who is behind in reading has a very lil chance of ever catching up? i was one of those kids, and personally i think i did i great job : )
The topic about motivation really stirred up my mind. Sitting in the classroom yesterday really helped me see how much kids lack motivation. The teacher even asked a student "what motivates you? because the kid was close to having an F in the class. When asked the student just stared at the teacher. Once the teacher asked "are you just being lazy? because i dont think your dumb" the student nodded YES. I also see this at the school that i work at. The kids that have F's are mostly just lazy. Ive sat with a few ONe on ONe and they manage to do their work. They are very intelligent but just need someone sitting next to them telling them to do their work every 5minutes.
The teacher that Im observing bases his lectures on the California Standards. The standards is the first thing that he announces in every single period. The pages that we read on the California standard on thursday also created some questions for me. Why do they state that a person who is behind in reading has a very lil chance of ever catching up? i was one of those kids, and personally i think i did i great job : )
Response to clss discussion
Last weeks "group session" was thought provoking. I DO think it's harder for students to "overcome" the situation that their families have been in for generations (like welfare or hard labor jobs, no education, etc...) but I DON'T think it's out of the question. Kids who truly WANT to succeed will. They will work harder to overcome ANY obstacles that may be in their way. But what about those kids who have NO motivation? They may "want" to succeed as well, but their desire may not be enthusiastic enough to work hard and do just that: succeed. How do we get THESE kids just as motivated? I know, I'm rambling, but I think our discussion opened up more questions (which is a good thing; I'm not complaining).
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Thoughts from last week's interactions
I found the links on blackboard to the state standards and testing very helpful. I am going to be able to incorporate some of the information found in these links when I write my paper. In particular, I am going to point to the information I found under the California Approved Reading List, where it states that the parent and the child are the persons who knows best which books are appropriate to read. In this section, it also talked about motivation and applicability. I will also pull in the information from the standards where it is stated that if students are behind in the reading by the end of the third grade, that they have a slim chance of ever catching up.
As for our readings, I felt Gee's theories were in line with others we've read. The point that students need to be able to apply what they are learning in their daily activities is one we've heard echoed by other authors. What I hadn't thought of is the idea that the learning that occurs in the classroom may help provide students with strategies for tackling different discourses. While students may not acquire a specific secondary discourse, they can become what Gee refers to as "mushfakers," and in this way they can accomplish what they need to accomplish within secondary discourses without necessarily being "true" members of that discourse. So while we hope that our students will "acquire" knowledge, we must also realize that teaching strategies that will help them to "cheat" in other discourses, and society as a whole, is just as important.
As for our readings, I felt Gee's theories were in line with others we've read. The point that students need to be able to apply what they are learning in their daily activities is one we've heard echoed by other authors. What I hadn't thought of is the idea that the learning that occurs in the classroom may help provide students with strategies for tackling different discourses. While students may not acquire a specific secondary discourse, they can become what Gee refers to as "mushfakers," and in this way they can accomplish what they need to accomplish within secondary discourses without necessarily being "true" members of that discourse. So while we hope that our students will "acquire" knowledge, we must also realize that teaching strategies that will help them to "cheat" in other discourses, and society as a whole, is just as important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
