how the maker movement can help create writers

I really enjoyed the video and reading paired together this week, because I think it's completely important and relevant in the next steps toward teaching writing. I think this is that "fourth wave" that Yancey reflects on, the next movement in writing assessment in education. While the third wave is still portfolio-based and tries to be more creative, I think that if writing assessment moves toward that DIY-ideology that the DML webinar discusses, it will work a lot better for students. If students gain more control over their work in both a creative and multimodal context, writing can become more individualized and accessible to a variety of students.

It's significant to recognize the maker movement as something that can also be applied to the teaching of writing, and is not just exclusive to engineers or people who have "left-sided" brains. If we create makerspaces that cater toward developing writing skills, such as including kinesthetic methods of teaching writing instead of all just visual or auditory, it appeals to another type of thinker. That way, writing can reach out toward a multitude of students and instill confidence in people who think they inherently "are not good writers" - there should be no such thing. Learning comes to people a variety of ways, and makerspaces and DIY projects help include that neurodiversity.

Consequently, besides just helping develop the student as a writer, a DIY approach can be applied to writing assessments in school. Elyse Eidman-Aadahl mentions that writing assessments are completely formulaic and "not natural" environment for cultivating writing. Thus, if the next wave of writing assessment transforms into a process that encourages a more "studio" atmosphere, it is ultimately better for the student. That way, the student becomes more involved in their writing: it becomes a subject they are interested in, and this interest will hopefully breed the potential for their writing project to reach an actual audience. It all goes back to this culture of attribution, and if students are creating, are making, there's a feeling of success and self-worth by adding their voice in an ongoing or completely new conversation.

In that sense, writing assessments have the potential to be more than just a dreaded thing that a student has to "pass." Instead, it can become an opportunity for students to express and explore themselves and their writing and subjects that interest them, in order to further their personal and academic curiosities and abilities.

the problem with "research papers"

Composition 101, Researching and Writing, Expository Writing - whatever the class is called, there will always be freshmen coming to the writing center in a panic and asking consultants on how to help them to get "a good grade" on their paper for the class. These foundation classes are significant in building the student's writing ability and to prepare them for more papers to come at university; however, it seems to do the exact opposite in terms of "authentically" improving a student's writing abilities. I'm glad that Katherine chose to do these two articles, because I cannot stress enough how toxic formulaic writing is for students in composition classes - instead of promoting critical thinking skills, original ideas, and individualized voice in their paper, students cling to a pattern in academic writing that has preceded and is expected of them. These students are desperate to follow the formula, regurgitate ideas just to make their argument in a paper "safe," stress out over every proper citation placement, and constantly ask writing center tutors, "Is this paper good? Does it follow the requirements? Do you think the professor will be ok with this?"

Students are poisoned with that idea of writing for a grade, and thus try their best to make their paper into a scientific puzzle- "Maybe if I move this sentence here, add a citation after this part, put a quote there, it'll look like the sample paper our professor shared with us, and then I'll be ok!" They are so concerned with getting through the class with no other reason than keeping their GPA up and just not failing, and consequently have no interest in writing for themselves. Like Barbara Fister says in her article, "Why the 'Research Paper' Isn't Working," students are too afraid to express their own ideas and make the paper their own because it won't "fit" with what the professor wants, or even that there aren't enough  "sources" to back a completely original argument. Students are concerned with replication, which is why having a standard "research paper" isn't working. The concept needs to be reworked so that it encourages students to think on their own and tend to their own ideas, instead of doing incomplete, surface-level research just to support a quote for an argument they have no interest in.

Additionally, these standard research papers clash completely with the ideology of the writing center. The writing center works toward non-direct conversations that help the students think and encourage their individuality and confidence in their own writing and voice, as opposed to showing students directly how to "make their paper better." That's not what the writing center is about, and having those research papers seem to only promote that mentality of "do as I say," instead of giving them more freedom to explore their voice. Academic foundation courses in writing need to rethink their methods in teaching, as it is dangerous to the students; ultimately, they will keep repeating this behavior of formulaic writing in their other classes. That habit, consequently, is detrimental to their own learning, and definitely does not help prepare them for their other classes at university that will require original research, original thought, and original voice.

#whyiwrite concept + memo

For my #whyIwrite project, I'm exploring my own poetics and the reasoning behind why I personally write poetry. Ultimately, the main reasoning of why I enjoy writing is this idea of voice and its personal connection with the audience. Allen Ginsberg talks about it at length in a 1966 interview with The Paris Review, where he says we draw distinctions for ourselves between we tell our audience, what we tell our friends, and what we tell our Muse: but why do we confine our literary selves like that? I think that's definitely an important part of my poetics- the lines that we make for ourselves should be blurred and be allowed to be crossed and invaded in order to conceive what I personally believe is "better" literature. If I am not honest with my Muse about my true feelings, or if I am not sharing that one drunk narrative from two months ago I told my friend Emily, I feel like something can be lost in my poetry. After all, I think those candid and unfiltered moments are what truly make poetry interesting, personal, and authentic: thus, I write to share the poetic moments in the narrative of my life as a means to connect with others in a way that becomes a raw and truly human experience.

In terms of concerns I have with my project, I'm worried about a few things:

1) In the big scheme of things, is this saying anything important? I want to add to a conversation, and not regurgitate a common idea or something that no one cares about.
2) In terms of technicality, is my draft focused? What can I do in terms of bettering transitions or connections in thought?
3) Does any of this stick with you? I tried to make my draft both amusing yet literary: I tried my hand with some humorous lines and with some poetic lines, in hopes that certain images and things that I am saying will leave something of an imprint in the mind of my reader.
4) What else can I include to elaborate / solidify my argument that would be helpful?

Pedagogical Perspectives: Self and Identity in Writing

Presentation

Review

the problem of the "monolingual norm"

While I don't feel like there was a real connection between the two articles, I did enjoy Matsuda's article of "Teaching Composition in the Multilingual World." Just to start off with, individuals who can write in another language are truly amazing, as that unnatural skill, especially trying to sound fluent in another language, is completely challenging. For me, I struggle with just writing a sentence in Japanese, because I want to think about all of the rules of grammar, semantics, colloquialisms, and generally if it sounds natural and not "out of context." Thus, for someone who identifies as a multilingual writer, their mind has to continue to more consciously think of all of those rules and challenges, as opposed to just letting it come naturally to them - in all honesty, it does not come natural for a lot of native speakers, too, because writing comes as a difficult task for a good deal of people, regardless of their language.

Additionally, I found the part in Matsuda's article about English as the "monolingual norm" to be very important (49). In particular, I think Matsuda touches on the fact that, if someone holds English as a "superior" language and disregards / dismisses the possibility or presence of other languages in the field of writing, it creates a problem that is much related to the idea of privilege. Because of this privilege, it also can tie into an issue of the loss of voice, in that something can be culturally lost when translated, as opposed to being read in the mother tongue. For example, a piece of Japanese poetry has a meaning entirely in its linguistic context; however, by following this idea of a "monolingual norm" and "making" it English (as opposed to trying to read it in Japanese), the poem loses meaning. Ultimately, multilingual writers definitely have overcome so many obstacles in writing, and as Matsuda mentions, they are not as recognized; additionally, this lack of recognition and forcing them to conform to the "superiority" of the English language also poses a larger cultural and societal problem, which truly shapes the identity of these writers.

voice & our identities as writers

Both Peter Elbow's "Voice in Writing Again" and Nancy Sommers's "Responding to Student Writing" pair together in a way I don't think I was initially expecting. At first, I thought it would be a more generic concept of how the voice is just an important aspect of writing, and that teachers should empathize with the fact that the student is exercising that voice. I thought it would be similar to what we heard a few weeks ago, with the idea of writing comments on students' papers.

Instead, I was pleasantly surprised, mostly with Elbow's article, in that the concept of voice becomes a multifaceted tool in the process of writing. Ultimately, you can either include or exclude it in a variety of ways to understand the significance of its presence and its influence in your writing. To add, voice as a physical construction can help communicate ideas of writing better, or even help to understand texts more. Overall, Elbow went through a variety of ways to think about voice in relationship to our identities as writers.

More specifically, I found the one passage about "attention to voice can help with reading" very intriguing, and I agree with Elbow wholeheartedly (178). By reading texts aloud, I feel like it forces you to understand it more and be actively involved in what it is saying, as opposed to playing a more passive role by listening to it. When reading, your brain tries to process and comprehend it more, because I believe that once it leaves your lips, those words temporarily "belong to you" - as such, you want to make sure they are true, authentic, and not vague or nonsensical to you. Consequently, it will help you "own" those words and convey the text, with your voice, to your audience, in such a way that you want them to understand exactly what it is you are trying to say. That active participation, then, creates this responsibility of "your words," as you now have to "take ownership" of them for the class, especially if asked to explain later.

I also agreed with Elbow's argument of ignoring voice being essential in teaching writing (181). While voice adds individualism to your paper and helps shape the argument and tone, it should not takeover your writing completely. If that happens, the paper then becomes overwhelmed with subjectivity, as opposed to a level of objectiveness needed for a student to write a "good" academic paper. Research, of course, needs to be done before you can even make a claim; then, once you logically reason your argument, you can let your voice through to highlight your paper, which can make it more powerful and authentic. 

Elbow's ideas, then, can be paired with an understanding of Sommers's article. Sommers essentially talks about the teacher's voice when commenting on student papers, which can be described as harsh, vague, and overall confusing for the student. Additionally, Sommers also reflects on the fact that teachers do not, or maybe cannot, take the time to write insightful comments that work to develop the conversation of the students' work even further. Instead, most comments are just written for the use of the student to use of a "final draft," as opposed to an ongoing development and collaboration of their writing and ideas. We can see that voice, especially the tone, is not communicated in the responses to students' writing. To add, the teacher's vagueness becomes an issue as well, which is possibly related to the Aristotelian quote Elbow mentioned of, "It helps to be trustworthy; but if you're skilled, fake it" (qtd. in 169). Teachers might use that leverage of authority to indirectly "help" their students, instead of being direct and explicit in how their writing could be improved. While they might not want to tell their students exactly "what to do" to produce a good paper, they use abstract language in hopes of "intellectually guiding" them to the best form of their paper - this mostly ends in frustration for the students, and could be seen as aloofness, even laziness, on the teacher's part.

Additionally, I feel like Elbow's ideas about voice can also translate into my own passion project for our Genius Hour. In particular, the idea of voice, especially in poetry, has always fascinated me. As Allen Ginsberg inquired, what do you tell your muse, and what do you tell your friends? Raw and authentic language straddles those lines, and that is what I personally find poetic (barring completely confessional poetry - that stuff is awful). I'm thinking of exploring those concepts further, as I think being personal and vulnerable with your audience is a significant part of my own poetics - that honesty is the connection I want to build with people who want to read my poetry. In my #whyIwrite contribution, it conveys that same sentiment:

responses to student writing

While the teacher's perspective was harder to relate to reading these two articles, I could definitely empathize more with the students' feelings toward short and unclear comments. The short comments of "not clear," "be more specific," or just "awk" have been all too frustrating; consequently, the tone of the short comments, while familiar to what the teacher wanted to convey, can come across wrong for the student. Even though it's not the case, I've misinterpreted it as something akin to disinterest, which does not make any writer feel very encouraged.

With that being said, I liked that both articles tried to tackle fixing those misunderstandings. In particular, I liked that in Beach and Friedrich's article, "Response to Writing," they discussed the idea of implementing oral commentary instead of written, since it is overall easier and that the teacher has more of a chance to "elaborate more on comments" (qtd. in 225). Thus, it is almost like having a mini, one-sided conference, but in gives the teacher a chance to go into more depth, and it also makes their tone a lot more clear for students so they do not misinterpret comments.

Even though teachers are responsible for a lot of students, and writing comments can be therefore tedious after awhile, they do need to find a way to make them meaningful. If they cannot do that, it definitely makes the student, as a writer, suffer. They may not understand what the teacher exactly means, and the teacher may not exactly have time for them later on. While I can sympathize with the plight of the teacher, even though it was harder for me to completely stand in their shoes, they are there to help the student blossom, and therefore should make comments that are not many and meaningless, but few and meaningful.

the authenticity of teaching writing in classrooms

In one of the opening lines in Carly Lidvall's "Get Real: Instructional Implications for Authentic Writing Activities," she clearly states that, "Student interest in writing begins once students see a real reason for writing" (3). In that sentence, she summarizes the overall meaning in her paper and study, in that without an authentic outlet or opportunity, writing will forever be a deplorable chore for a student. I couldn't agree more with Lidvall's efforts and analysis for the need for implementing a curriculum which can foster a real interest for students in writing; after all, writing is not just confined to the concept of an academic paper. Once you can make the student realize that, such as through the introduction of a classroom newspaper, students will let their curiosity for the subject take a natural course. Once they find the genuine want to write, it will hopefully carry on in "the bigger picture" of their academic, as well as personal, life.

What I liked most was the idea of a project that could be entirely the students'. While the paper became a newfound responsibility, it was not one that was a burden; instead, it became a creative, personal project that was entirely a reflection of the students' effort. Additionally, they wanted to put thought throughout the whole thing, from the caption of articles to the quotes to the content itself. They were authentically engaging in writing, as well as research - skills that would definitely translate over when tackling academic papers in the future, as well as to the process of making any creative project in general. I enjoyed that perspective. Additionally, it made me reflect on my own academic projects and papers, and how fun they can be when you harbor a genuine interest for the research and writing you are doing. It also made me think of some of my peers and their dread over writing papers - if they had the ability to change their perspective and think of it as fun, like the students from Lidvall's study, would they be able to find more interest in it? Or is that an idea they need to come to on their own, like how Lidvall suggests with the early albeit authentic introduction to the realm of writing?

To add to the idea of being able to inspire and encourage students to write, it is not only the students who have to be interested - the teachers do, too, which ties into the article "Teacher-Writers: Then, Now, and Next." Ultimately, what I took from the article was that teachers who identify as writers need to continue to make their presence known in both the classroom and the world of academia. I don't know much about the politics of writing in the classroom, but it seems like teachers can be intimidated by mandatory curriculum and tight schedules, as well as have a general lack of confidence to identify themselves as writers and assert that in a classroom too. With both staff and students overlooking the concept of writing, teacher-writers shrink back; however, it seems to me the article suggests that teachers persist and be proud of their identity as teacher-writers, since they are important figures to being able to create and develop the ability to write in their classroom. Yet, if a teacher-writer is not as invested, then that genuine interest in writing that Lidvall discusses cannot come to fruition. If teacher-writers develop more ideas for helping writing in classrooms, as well as publish them to their teaching community (like Lidvall), that intellectual communication and camaraderie can start to tackle the "reluctance" that is writing. Ultimately, if the teachers lose sight of their authenticity of what their job can do, it reflects in the students - no amount of mandatory curriculum will be able to bring out the spark of genuine interest like a teacher can.

the significance of self and peer revision in writing

After reading the articles, I wholeheartedly agree with both Yancey's and Jaxon's concepts about how reflection and peer revision, respectively, better your ability to write. Ultimately, the most significant connection between the two articles I saw was the importance of grounding yourself in objectivity while reading writing - whether it is yours or your peer's. Both seem to push the idea of leaving your subjective views of your paper behind; for example, in Yancey's article, she discusses the writer's self-reflection at great length. By rereading your work and constructively revising and adding to the textual conversation of your paper, I feel like you are being trained to look less and less subjectively at your own words. Instead of rereading your paper and thinking it is good and does not need much changing, you are not doing yourself any favors; however, if you are able to see missing ideas and critically develop the paper by pretending you are a third-party viewer, it will increase your writing abilities because of the objective thinking you have practiced while reflecting.

Similarly, I feel like Jaxon talks about peer tutoring in the same light. For an individual to successfully be able peer tutor, they need to adapt a different identity entirely, since they now become something akin to their professor. If that concept of peer tutoring is realized, the student will try to become more "serious" and thoughtful while reading their peer's work; by doing so, you take yourself out of subjective thinking, which includes personal bias. While you may take into consideration what you have written versus what your peer as written, you are using it to constructively develop both of your writing abilities. Like Jaxon says, if you are able to effectively peer tutor and analyze their thoughts, you consequently learn how to write a more well-rounded and better paper yourself.

As said before, I feel like Jaxon and Yancey hit the nail on the head. While being a writing center tutor is different than just regular peer tutoring, they are still related on some level. While working at the writing center, as I was reading and helping students, I was able to help myself; in all honestly, I could see my writing develop over the years of working there. To start with, papers become very easy to write for me, which was mostly attributed to the fact I had learned how to structure my thoughts, the flow of the text, and making sure the overall focus was there. Ultimately, I feel as though Yancey was able to summarize the importance of the necessity of reflection in writing, where she stated that "reflection is a critical component of learning and writing specifically; articulating what we have learned for ourselves is a key process in that learning" (7). By learning from the writing mistakes of my students, my skill increased in writing too, since I was more effectively able to practice what I was preaching to them. Additionally, in rereading my papers in an objective light, as well as being able to add to them in a way that is "conversational" also is a good tool to improve individual writing; without the ability to look critically at our own writing as an "outsider," it is very easy to be blind to our own flaws, and even harder to accept that we have any to begin with, which is why accepting the objectivity of revision is so important to improving your own writing.