WHY DO I GRADE THE WAY I DO

Prior to this semester I had no experience with grading or FYC and thus no standard to base my grading on. As the first assignments (summaries) came in for grading I was struck by the number of students who had trouble understanding what they had read or more precisely, comprehending the author’s intention. As the next assignments (paraphrasing and evaluating) arrived to be graded  the problems of reading comprehension were compounded by their inability to understand the task at hand with what often appeared to be a lack of commitment on the student’s part. What resulted was that my grading became mainly an assessment of their reading comprehension combined with the very subjective evaluation of their effort.  Grading became (and I’m not proud of this) greatly affected by my mood. If students were indicating to me that they put some time into the assignment, even if it contained many mistakes, it positively affected the grade they received. If I had consecutive papers that were frustrating because of the reasons I mentioned above, I found myself grading harsher than usual. When my grading group met to discuss ‘norming’, it seemed, surprisingly, as if possibly I was being lenient in my grading when I was worried about being harsh.
My grading- if it does reflect a philosophy on composition- is based more on content than form. I seem to be less concerned with grammar than with the attempt to communicate an idea. I feel that correctness of the writing will come, but first many of these students need to learn critical reading and build up some confidence around the articulation of their ideas.

Paying Attention

Cynthia Selfe’s article “Technology and Literacy: A Story About the Perils of Not Paying Attention” seems to be existing on two different levels.The centerpiece of her argument is essentially that the inequality of education in the United States supports and is supported by the Capitalist class system. The introduction of computer technology into our educational community maintains that status quo and at the same time creates a more efficient consumer. Her examination of education and class inequality forced this reader to ‘pay attention’.  She concluded her article with suggestions for potential changes on a local level. Some of her recommendations; to develop critical thinking class conscious students, and “to insist on and support more equitable distributions of technology.” I find myself wondering about the reality of these suggestions. Many young students don’t know what critical thinking is, and if they did I wonder how sympathetic they would be towards poor people of color. I remember thinking during the Presidential debates that neither candidate mentioned the poor. There was much talk about the middle class, but the poor become invisible during the election. And now, with cries of socialism surrounding a health care bill, I have to question whether this country believes in and wishes for equality. To me the big issue in education is the  leveling the playing field and then worry about technology.

My PROCESS

My writing process consists of the three stages outlined by Murray, prewriting, writing and rewriting. The prewriting process is probably the only one I enjoy. I enjoy it so much that I over research, as a form of procrastination that includes the futile hope that I’ll never have to move on to the next stage. Writing. I wonder why writing is so painful for me. I seem to want every sentence to flow out of me perfectly and thus be able to avoid the third stage totally. There is an interior critic who I must do battle with for every sentence on the page. What I have found helpful for myself are two processes; speaking my thoughts (this involves either a tape recording device or someone who would like to take dictation, this second option is perhaps less practical), I have also found that forcing myself to write non-stop for five or ten minutes, uncensored, frees my own writing inhibitions . Nevertheless, I still struggle through the process. Rewriting is also painful, because once again the critic comes out. Obviously, I never took a class that emphasized or taught a writing process. I believe in teaching process over product. Murray’s inventory of implications all make sense and I might try to incorporate them myself  in the next paper I write.

Voice and the Academy

Peter Elbow ‘s essay equates lack of voice with a certain type of censorship, often self-imposed, but usually deriving from the exterior forces of conformity. Voice, our real voice, is something we once had as children and through our transformation into adulthood has been lost, erased, covered up.  This process often occurs under the guise of getting an education. Elbow seems to be saying that much more is at stake here than our writing; it involves regaining ourselves. The question of does voice have a place in academic writing, will have a multitude of answers. I say, why not. What ‘s so great and sacred about academic writing to begin with? Isn’t an academic voice a fake voice?  The supplementation of real voice in a research paper could add interesting and new modulations that might not have  seemed possible if one remained in an academic voice.

Why Do We Teach FYC?

It would be nice if there was no need for said coursework, but alas after grading the Diagnostic Exams I realize that that is not  the case. Most of the students’ work that I was witness to expressed various degrees of insecurity regarding their abilities to communicate properly in the written mode. So, we teach FYC sadly because we need to. Writing, intimately connected with reading, are both sources of great frustration to way too many of our young population. So though FYC is necessary, it also must be taught in a manner that doesn’t further alienate students and perpetuate the college drop out rate, that has reached the level of about 70%.
It is a balancing act that teachers are faced with; to properly educate on a college level while acknowledging that many never received a rudimentary education to begin with. I know I’m not being representative of all students. There is no doubt that the skills that ideally the student will walk away with are essential to critical thinking,the expression of original ideas and thoughts, and success on a college academic level.   For those who did receive a formidable high school education, FYC is designed as an ideal bridge into a level of higher education. It is the toolbox necessary to go on and and succeed in college and for those who didn’t, it can perhaps inspire with the powers and wonder of language. Personally, I wish I had a course such as FYC when I was an undergraduate and didn’t struggle so in writing a research based paper.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!