I think the biggest take away from this class for me was what I learned from the group project on the Accelerated Learning Program at the Community College of Baltimore County. We've read a lot about the problems that basic writers face and the inefficacy of many developmental writing classes but the research on ALP showed that these problems are widely acknowledged and that there is an active force behind finding solutions for these issues. Peter Dow Adam's proposal at the 1992 Conference of Basic Writing has gained traction and ALP programs are now part of the curriculum in community colleges across the United States, including the newly minted program at Queensborough Community College.
Classroom teachers, despite good intentions, are often rendered ineffective because of institutionally imposed standards and curriculum. What's worse is that we are often aware of our own insufficiency but are unable to see a way out. The Accelerated Learning Program is a way out even if it isn't part of whatever institution that we're teaching in because we can study the techniques used therein and implement them in "traditional" classes. This is great news. Teachers typically get into the field out of somewhat altruistic motives -- we're certainly not getting rich doing it -- our compensation is linked to our students' success. If we have low pass rates or our students are struggling, that negatively affects our performance as teachers and makes us even less effective in the classroom. We all know teachers who seem to have given up. Perhaps, we've all been in classes that were taught by teachers that have given up. It's excruciating.
It's really good to know that there are things happening that will increase teacher compensation by increasing success rates for our students. It's equally beneficial for us to understand that we need to be advocates for the students we serve rather than servants of our institutions. We should remember that change won't happen unless we demand it.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Monday, December 15, 2014
Comment on "Basic Writing Reconsidered" by Peter Dow Adams - What's Left Out? (from ALP blog)
I agree with much of your assessment about the conditions that lead to
the necessity of basic writing classes and the quality of those basic writing
classes. One of my biggest problems with remediation programs is that students
have to pay for classes that they don't get credit for. If it is a requirement
of a program, some credit should be granted toward the completion of a degree.
I also think that students who test into these programs should be allowed to
take other classes simultaneously. If the student has more invested in the
educational experience, they are more likely to succeed. It's not just...I have
to take this class to get into a degree program; it's I have to complete this
class along with another class--maybe a humanities course or computer science--in
order to succeed in this program. Requiring basic writing and excluding
students from any other options sends a very clear message--you're not good
enough to participate in the institution that you're a student in. It's a very
strange position to be in, I think--and one that values one kind of literacy
above all the rest.
I also think there's a problem with the bar being set too low. I know a lot of people--some of them in my own family--who didn't succeed in post secondary education. And, I can tell you--there's nothing wrong with their brains--they're just not that good at the standard. There's a man I see sometimes on the 2 train, he calls himself Blue, he gets on the train, performs his own poetry an sells his self-published books. His background--as described by his poetry--was very difficult--drugs, jail etc. Some of his poems describe experiences he had in school--sitting in the back row...not taken seriously...he learned, basically, that if he was quiet the teacher gave him a passing grade. Talk about setting the bar low! Just be quiet and you pass. His experience speaks to an educational experience wherein people are alienated; they are not important, they don't have anything to contribute. It's really sad. Blue found a way out of the silence through poetry--his poetry is pretty good, I think, and I've read quite a bit of poetry. Many people never find that outlet, they're not compelled to speak out in the way that he is--by some inner mechanism--so, they attempt a more traditional route--school. They get the same message he did. Teachers should respect students' experiences, even if we don't know where they're coming from. It's easy to ignore people that don't fit the mold, don't perform the standard. Respect, I think, goes a long way in motivating people to learn. Classroom practices need to send the message that the students do have something to contribute and help them contribute better and in different ways. We need to teach skills that move between worlds and allow students to succeed wherever they want.
I also think there's a problem with the bar being set too low. I know a lot of people--some of them in my own family--who didn't succeed in post secondary education. And, I can tell you--there's nothing wrong with their brains--they're just not that good at the standard. There's a man I see sometimes on the 2 train, he calls himself Blue, he gets on the train, performs his own poetry an sells his self-published books. His background--as described by his poetry--was very difficult--drugs, jail etc. Some of his poems describe experiences he had in school--sitting in the back row...not taken seriously...he learned, basically, that if he was quiet the teacher gave him a passing grade. Talk about setting the bar low! Just be quiet and you pass. His experience speaks to an educational experience wherein people are alienated; they are not important, they don't have anything to contribute. It's really sad. Blue found a way out of the silence through poetry--his poetry is pretty good, I think, and I've read quite a bit of poetry. Many people never find that outlet, they're not compelled to speak out in the way that he is--by some inner mechanism--so, they attempt a more traditional route--school. They get the same message he did. Teachers should respect students' experiences, even if we don't know where they're coming from. It's easy to ignore people that don't fit the mold, don't perform the standard. Respect, I think, goes a long way in motivating people to learn. Classroom practices need to send the message that the students do have something to contribute and help them contribute better and in different ways. We need to teach skills that move between worlds and allow students to succeed wherever they want.
"Funding and Support for Basic Writing: Why is There so Little?" by Mary Jo Berger (from ALP blog)
In "Funding and Support for Basic Writing: Why is There so Little?", Mary Jo Berger asks and attempts to answer the question: "Are our institutions reneging on their commitment to at-risk students?" Her first line of inquiry has to do with the question itself. She wonders whether this commitment has ever actually been made and if so, by whom. She sets points out several important moments in education wherein the promise may have been made: perhaps in the 70's when there was excitement around Mina Shaunnessey's Errors and Expectations, or maybe in the 80's when colleges were publicly stating their support or "diversity" and wooed black and Latino students to replace the dwindling body of traditional students. Although she cannot determine when or if the question has ever been asked, she acknowledges the need for increased funding for developmental programs.
Berger likens basic writing to a neglected item all but forgotten on the top shelf of a closet in the spare room. She asserts that basic writing, as part of general education, belongs to no one; it "belongs" neither to faculty, students or administration. As it belongs to no one, it lacks a powerful advocate who could lobby on its behalf hence it is underfunded. Despite its lack of both money and status, Berger exhorts teachers of basic writing to be a voice of advocacy for a program that is considered by some "shameful,...by recognizing [writing teachers] presence, let alone our value, will destroy traditional "educational values." (83) She emphasizes that understanding how institutional funding works is the first step to getting a bigger slice of the pie.
Berger describes the workings of higher educations processes as "organized anarchy", a hotbed of ambiguity and individualism. In this situation, decisions for support and funding are often "the by-products, not of efficiently implementing unambiguous goals through a bureaucratic chain nor the result of a consensus reached by professionals, but of unintended and/or unplanned activity."(84) Berger asserts that there are important characteristics of higher education which we must be aware of if we intend to increase funding for basic writing.
The first characteristic is that inactivity prevails in decision making in higher education. Would be advocates have such limited time that they're unable to participate in the decision-making process. So, most of the decisions are made by only a few people. Secondly, participation in decision-making tends to be intermittent; Berger recommends persistence by the advocates as a means of increasing funding for basic writing programs. The third characteristic of "organized anarchy" is conflict, Berger advises engaging in the process with stats and persuasive arguments. She also recommends that we mobilize allies such as students, parents, co-workers, interest groups and using the language of the institution to talk about our goals for basic writing students.
The article concludes with Berger's counsel on the best ways to increase funding in this sorely needed area. First, understand the power structures of your institution. Second, publicize what we do as basic writing teachers. Next, organize for action, mobilize allies to help. And finally, talk persuasively to anyone who will listen.
Berger likens basic writing to a neglected item all but forgotten on the top shelf of a closet in the spare room. She asserts that basic writing, as part of general education, belongs to no one; it "belongs" neither to faculty, students or administration. As it belongs to no one, it lacks a powerful advocate who could lobby on its behalf hence it is underfunded. Despite its lack of both money and status, Berger exhorts teachers of basic writing to be a voice of advocacy for a program that is considered by some "shameful,...by recognizing [writing teachers] presence, let alone our value, will destroy traditional "educational values." (83) She emphasizes that understanding how institutional funding works is the first step to getting a bigger slice of the pie.
Berger describes the workings of higher educations processes as "organized anarchy", a hotbed of ambiguity and individualism. In this situation, decisions for support and funding are often "the by-products, not of efficiently implementing unambiguous goals through a bureaucratic chain nor the result of a consensus reached by professionals, but of unintended and/or unplanned activity."(84) Berger asserts that there are important characteristics of higher education which we must be aware of if we intend to increase funding for basic writing.
The first characteristic is that inactivity prevails in decision making in higher education. Would be advocates have such limited time that they're unable to participate in the decision-making process. So, most of the decisions are made by only a few people. Secondly, participation in decision-making tends to be intermittent; Berger recommends persistence by the advocates as a means of increasing funding for basic writing programs. The third characteristic of "organized anarchy" is conflict, Berger advises engaging in the process with stats and persuasive arguments. She also recommends that we mobilize allies such as students, parents, co-workers, interest groups and using the language of the institution to talk about our goals for basic writing students.
The article concludes with Berger's counsel on the best ways to increase funding in this sorely needed area. First, understand the power structures of your institution. Second, publicize what we do as basic writing teachers. Next, organize for action, mobilize allies to help. And finally, talk persuasively to anyone who will listen.
Politics of Basic Writing" by Karen Greenberg (from ALP blog)
In the Politics of Basic Writing", Karen Greenberg embraces her profession, a basic writing teacher, fully comprehending that it's a designation considered, in some way, "shameful." She also describes her role in directing her college's Developmental English Program as being inextricably linked with to research and development in the tools that assess success in these writing programs. She disagrees with David Bartholomae's assertion that "most basic writing courses are "obstacles rather than opportunities" (65) and with his concern about the veracity of the assessment tools that place students into developmental writing classes. While she seems to agree that assessment tools are, in many cases, unreliable, she contends that it's not because assessment tools, in and of themselves, aren't useful. Rather, it's that the assessment tools are so distrusted among teachers of basic--and other--writing courses that they essentially reject them as inappropriate and don't participate in their invention or implementation. When writing teachers don't participate, the task of creating and implementing the assessment tools is quickly assumed by administrators and state legislators-- a group that has neither first-hand knowledge of the workings of writing programs nor any real incentive to support them or ensure that the students are successful. Greenberg seems to be taking Mary Berger's advice to heart by agreeing that teachers need to be more invested in the process to ensure a better result and to ensure that these programs aren't simply eliminated from the curriculum.
Greenberg states that despite the misgivings of teachers, “state-mandated assessments of college basic skills programs are sweeping the country.” (65) Successful outcomes for basic writing programs will continue to diminish because already underfunded programs will continue to atrophy as funding is further reduced. If the college has limited money, they are likely to favor programs that produce results that can be qualified as “successful” by state-mandated assessment tools. Greenberg stresses the importance of showing that these programs are useful to college success as a whole. She states that the theories associated with basic writing practices need to inform the reality of the basic writing classroom and vice versa. Despite theoretical insights into basic writing practices gained from diverse fields such as cognitive psychology and applied linguistics, classroom practices continue to follow a “remedial” model and too many basic writers “are subjected to skills/drills content and to pedagogies that conceptualize writing as a set of subskills that must be mastered in a series of steps and stages.” (67) Greenberg goes on to describe basic writing instruction and assessment at CCNY and defines the goal of the program, “to help students develop more sophisticated ways of thinking and writing, based on induction, deduction, generalization and evidence.” (67) Greenberg connects the growth and diversification of basic skills programs at CUNY as leading to the inception of a variety of programs across the CUNY system.
Greenberg writes that CUNY’s writing programs depend upon early identification of students’ strengths and weaknesses as determined by the CUNY Writing Skills Assessment Test -- a test developed by writing teacher “who surveyed the research and practice in the field of composition” (68) and based on academic research and the premise that the most important writing skill for these students was the ability to write “expositive/argumentative essays in Standard Written Academic English.” (68) The test, as a tool, is more effective than many, according to Greenberg, because it is read and evaluated by two or three full-time writing teachers. In her article, “The Politics of Basic Writing”, Karen Greenberg appraises the test and the outcomes as successful, citing 80%-93% pass rates at Hunter College. She further states that the persistence and graduation rates of students who enter as basic writers are comparable to students that tested out of basic writing coursework. These results, Greenberg claims, prove her assertion that assessment tools can be effective if they’re crafted and administered by teachers of basic writing rather than administrators without access to or knowledge of the student population they serve.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)