Screw Conventions.

I'll start off with Noden, since that's what insisted my blog title. Chapter 6: The Artist's Special Effects really got me thinking about my own writing. I write on the fly, and there are many times where I want to portray a distinct mood, tone, thought. I want the reader to really truly understand a sentence the way that I meant for them to understand it-and sometimes you just have to chuck the grammar conventions that you're hung up on and go with your heart. As Noden says, "good sentences don't always follow conventions...[special effects] help create meanings that otherwise couldn't be expressed.
Now back to Chapter 5: Advanced Techniques. I'll start off by saying that some of the "chunks" that Noden defines are indeed advanced. For example, Chunk #3 deals with using run ons within your writing to create certain meanings. Now, obviously this supports what I just finished saying about conventions. HOWEVER, this isn't a technique that I'd find easy to teach a high school class. Students are taught for years and years that run on sentences are bad, that they need to separate lengthy sentences with the appropriate punctuation. How can we then say, "but sometimes it's okay." we can't. This technique is only effective for a writer who knows the conventions, has exhausted every other possibility, and then decides a run on sentence is appropriate. A high school student is not, in my opinion, an advanced enough writer to be able to decided when to follow and not follow convention. That's for the big dogs. Teach yours students the conventions, first; later they can learn to rule break.
Chunk #1 deals with noun collages and Chunk #2 with mixed collages. Of the two, I prefer the latter. In the examples Noden provided, I found the use of noun collages to be overwhelming. The authors are on imagery overload and the reader can't catch up. Detail and specifics are great, but moderation is also healthy. Mixed collages, in contrast, utilize variety and aren't as repetitive.
In Chunk #4, Noden discusses the power of describing invisible objects. I do this in my own writing - use "no" to show what a character or setting lacks - but I never realized I was utilizing a literary technique :) I love the examples Noden uses; the use of "no" is just as powerful and telling as the description of visible, animate objects and characters. I immediately thought of a presentation I did on my trips to Haiti. I started out by challenging the audience with this sentence: "imagine a world with no clean water, no ready and available food, no functioning and supplied hospitals, no way out." Of course, the reason I employ this method of introduction is because it immediately gets my audience thinking about what they have and what the Haitians do not. It is such a powerful visual-even though I'm describing invisible things. Crazy, huh?

Make it Memorable.

I finally realized that the reason I enjoy Anderson so much is because he helps me understand grammar in a way I never have. He doesn't simply provide a definition-he gives a textbook definition, a simple definition, an example lesson, and a visual scaffold. I have 4 different ways of understanding a concept!
Anyway, after this weeks reading it dawned on me that I remember learning that using adjectives were important for enhancing a sentence. Buy I don't remember being taught how to correctly use adjectives, or even how different grammatical concepts can be used to help enhance sentences so that adjectives aren't overused. I have a pretty good vocabulary so I always thought that if I used a few good adjectives here and there my writing would be pretty great. Of course, over the years and certainly in college, I have learned that there is much more to creating beautiful, musical sentences than a good adjective. I now have an excellent understanding of appositives, adverb clauses, and specific nouns and verbs..among other concepts. I use all of these methods in my writing, but I couldn't define them until now. The ability to define the strategies I use to write well give me the ability to teach those strategies and to better utilize them myself.
I appreciate Anderson's use of visual scaffolds especially because I myself am a visual learner. I will understand a concept better after seeing a visual demonstration or example rather than reading a definition.
I really admire the way Anderson taught adverb clauses. I will forever remember that grammar concept because of his relating it to movie and song titles. It is those types of lessons that will engrave knowledge into students minds. We have to make it memorable!

Music to my Ears

I'll start with Anderson...
I like the way Anderson explains grammatical concepts..I do. BUT, in this particular reading it dawned on me that maybe Anderson is a bit too complex. I mean, all four of his concepts (Subject-verb, Inflectional endings, Do and Have, and Tense Shifts) relate in some way...so why not just teach them altogether? Now, maybe there is a method to the madness...maybe he thinks it would be too confusing to teach 4 concepts in one lesson, but I think it might be confusing to the students to have to learn 4 different concepts separately. First of all, they have to learn about one concept then move onto another 3. That's a lot of learning. Then, on top of that, they have to remember each one...I think that's difficult for students. Once they move on, the move on. Maybe it would make more sense to teach the concepts according to one another. You could still teach them separately, but instead of moving on at the end of the lesson...tie it in with the next concept, and in each lesson make sure you are incorporating the prior lesson(s).

Now Noden..
I have a thing for good writing. By good writing, I mean words that flow, words thaat allow the reader to have a detialed and clear image in their minds, words that sound like music. I had always assumed that you just had to have raw talent to write like that..you just wrote and SHABAM, there it was. I am pleasantly surprised to now know that there are ways to teach that kind of beautiful writing. Noden explains literal repetition and uses as an example a letter from a lover to a soldier. When I finished reading the letter, I realized that I had goosebumps all over my arms. Not only because of the emotionally captivating topic, but because of the way the lover wrot her heartfelt words. The death of her soldier was not just a death. It was poetic, it made me feel like i was losing him too. I literally felt her pain. Now that is good writing!

Noden discusses how, just like adding some literal repetiton can make words translike and captivating, a sentence without that repetition can be dull and lifeless. So I considered how I would have reacted to the lover's letter had it been written differently. I imagined the letter as a simple narrative. I did this, this happened. Boring. Of course, the story is still sad...a soldier dies and his lover regrets not being able to repay him for his kindness and patience. But my reaction as a reader is infinitely different. I am not moved, I don't have goosebumps, and I will probably forget about the letter in a few minutes. That's a pretty huge difference! This made me think about how our society reacts to and uses quotes. I thought about some of my favorite quotes and why I liked them and remembered them. They're musical! They read poetically, and they are memorable. For example, "those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." This is an obvious use of literal repetition...and this quote also just happens to be one of the most popular quotes around. I don't think this is a coincidence..most of the quotes we value and are inspired by incorporate some aspect of either literal or grammatical repetition; they are catchy and memorable. Nobody remembers a simple, uninteresting sentence like, "If people mind what you're doing then they shouldn't matter to you, but if a person matters to you then they probably wn't mind what you do." It's wordy and boring.

I also enjoyed reading about periodic sentences and the emphasis Noden places on strong ending sentences. I totally agree...I think it's very easy to forget something you've read, but when the author ends on a strong note, you remember it..it sticks! Noden also discusses how quick cadence or slow cadence in sentences can contribute to its meaning. I had never considered this, but it is so true! If a sentence has a fast pace, and the sentence is about a murderer chasing his vicitm, I am more likely to appropriately imagine that scene in my head.

Multigenre Paper

Im both excited and nervous for this assignment. While looking at the example papers on d2l, I realized that I am more confident when completing assignments that have a set structure, consistent expectations. Give a rubric and im golden. I am nervous that I'll lose myself in the creativity of the project, that I'll stray from the purpose. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed going above and beyond on projects, adding my own flare to simple assignments. So, I'm intrigued by this paper. I think it will be interesting and helpful to come up with multiple ways of demonstrating, teaching a grammar issue or topic. Heck, maybe I'll come p with a few good teaching strategies along the way. This is my first time completing a project of this time, so I'm nervous, but I'm also very excited to see what I, as well as my classmates, come up with.

Writing is Rough

Noden writes that content shapes form, but that writers select form to express their content. Later he writes that form and content should be simultaneously decided upon. I disagree. I think that form limits, even deforms, content. As teachers, we should first allow our students to write freely on their topic without constraint or regulation. Only after the students' original ideas and thoughts are recorded should we begin to apply form and revision. Noden says that critics began to ask, " where is the 5 paragraph theme?" I ask, why is there a 5 paragraph structure to adolescent writing? In my eyes, it only confuses students and limits their imagination. They see introduction, body, conclusion and suddenly their originality is transformed into robotic styled writing. In this way, content is not shaping form...form is shaping content. However, if a student takes an original, free-form work and then molds it into a more organized, engaging text...that is beneficial. A student may look at Noden's multiple possibilities for leads in introductions, realize their own is weak, and alter it to make their paper more interesting. The writers creativity is still in tact, but form is helping to push them a little further..make their writing a little better.

Noden's also Includes a strategy in chapter 9 called, Run a Magazine Search. I found this activity to be interesting and helpful. Sometimes students look at the 5 paragraph structure and they understand that their paper should follow that structure; however, they struggle with how to make their paper follow that structure. The activity allows students to view a large variety or professional writing...models of the forms they are going to write such as journal articles, features, research papers, etc. The students are able to look at examples of the writing that is expected of them. They can view appropriate models of introductions, conclusions, even the structure of the body. Students then have more to work of of than simply a structure; they have examples to follow. Again,MIT is important for students to first write freely and creatively so as not to encounter the issue of students copying other authors styles. It is better for them to take their own work and then only mildly change it rather than creating their work based entirely off of the mentor text.

Chapter 10 discussed students' perspectives on the revision process. Noden tells us that many students are frightened and confused by the prospect of revising simply because they don't know what they are revising, how to revise it, or why they revising it to begin with. Duh! Revision is certainly confusing. Harvey's take on proof reading makes sense...how can they catch the errors if they didnt know they were making their error to begin with? If they knew the grammar rules they wouldn't have made the mistake, so how can they catch it? I think that revision is flawed. Teachers hand back students' papers were x's and marks, but how often do students actually learn lessons from those corrections? Teachers need to be sure that the revision process is effective. That is, they need to be accurately identifying, explaining, and assisting in correction of the problem.

In Anderson, I really liked the visual scaffold for the vague pronoun lesson. Anderson shows a rapid image if a paper that has each pronoun circled with arrows that point back to the subject that the pronoun is referring to. At first glance, I found the scaffold to be boring and unhelpful, but after examining it more closely, I realized that the scaffold is actually perfect. The various arrows connecting throughout the paper adequately illustrate the confusing nature of vague pronouns. The visual scaffold would be an affective way to show students why it's important to use pronouns sparingly.

What a thought...

Once again, I love Anderson! This reading selection was extra phenomenol because for the first time I am being educated about actual practices, legitimate lessons- and they are GREAT lessons!

"If students are going to stare at writing and talk about it, they must see powerful writing models."
 I 100% agree with this. We have talked in class about DORs and looking at incorrect sentences and correcting them, analyzing what is wrong about them. Couldn't that be damaging to our students. Isn't it possible that all of those negative text examples will be engraved in their minds and used in their writing, even if they don't realize it. I think it could be damaging. Mentor texts are a much more positive way of demonstrating good sentences. If students spend a large amount of time analyzing and breaking down good, intelligent sentences, they will be more likely to write similar sentences. Mentor texts > DORs

I spent a lot of time reading and thinking about Anderson's "Fragment Lesson". It really made me think about how we sometimes edit and correct students' writing without really taking into account what it is they may be trying to say. We don't take the time to flesh out the purpose in their mistakes. Could it be that what looks like a bad sentence to us, could have been the student's experimentation with grammar. Perhaps they were trying out using a participle phrase in a sentence, but they misplaced it so it all sounds wrong. If we take the red pen to it, we might as well tell the student, "you fail". Instead, we should be taking the time to look for what I call, "almost there sentences". As future teachers we should get into the habit of looking at incorrect sentences and asking the student what they wished to accomplish, what they were trying to apply, and then helping them correct it. That is beneficial...red penning the sentence is not. It is our job to give them the tools to correctly be creative.

On page 65, Anderson writes, what I think is, the most brilliant realization in the word of teaching grammar.
"I emphasize that the point of grammar is to help us write. Though we need not no every definition, we should know a few. Competent, confident writers know that an underlying structure holds some thoughts together and separates others. So, students need to be able to break down a sentence. This knowledge is the foundation for taking writing from choppy to flowing, from run-on to controlled."
Exactly! This passage epitomizes how I feel about grammar. I do not think knowing all the grammar definitions is necessary-far from it. But I do think knowing a feel of the basics is important and beneficial. If I know how to use fragments appropriately in a paper that I am writing, my words will flow more smoothly and I will be viewed as a creative writer. If I don't understand the difference between a fragment and a simple sentence, my writing will seem immature and choppy. It makes the difference. Learning the basics is the foundation of creative writing. You have to understand the fundamentals before you take on the complexities.

In the intorduction to Part II, Anderson gives an example of how is lessons are organized in the book. I appreciate that Anderson is using an incorect sentence example AND a correct mentor text to demonstrate the issue. Not only that, but he introduces grammar as the solution to the problem. I love the fact that Anderson is not just giving a worksheet defining fragments and handing out an exercise where the student identifies if a sentence is simple or a fragment. Instead, the teacher describes the error, both in layman's terms and in technical terms so that students can make that association, and then gives positive and negative examples before finally, initiating a solution.....grammar.

One of the processes that I noticed Anderson used multiple times was that of students closing their eyes and visualizing a sentence. This is a great idea-one that I am sure I will use. There is such a huge difference between viewing and seeing. Writing an independent sentence on a board and adding a dependent phrase to spruce it up is about a half a step up from a worksheet. Rather than doing it themselves, the students are watching you do the exercise. When the teacher has the students close their eyes, reads the sentence aloud, and asks them to visualize the sentence in their mind..they give students the ability to really see the sentence. Next, the teacher asks how the students visualize the same sentence when a dependent phrase is added. The students are able to visualize the difference between a plain old, dependent sentence and one that is creative, detailed. That is so amazing and empowering. The students are experiencing the change in the sentence within their own minds.

Let them Learn.

I'm going to focus on the reading from Anderson. I found the opening story in Chapter 3 to be intriguing. Hollis is discouraged because, rather than asking him why he chose the picture that he did, the teacher tells him what he did incorrectly and declares him wrong. I wonder how much teachers would discover about students if they were to ask instead of tell. Perhaps we would discover that students do understand the concept or assignment, just not in the way you wanted or expected. But does that make them wrong?

Sometimes I think that when we edit papers we edit content as well as form. We take away their words and thoughts and replace them with our own. Along with that, I think that English professionals have preconceived notions about what is good writing. A story about the mechanics of baseball is not interesting or artistic in our minds so we don't give it a chance. What we should be doing is talking with the student and teaching them ways to improve upon and spruce up that story. That's where teaching grammar comes it- use the toolbox to build the masterpiece.

I LOVED Anderson's view on Writer's notebooks for the same reason that I think free writing is ingenious. I journal myself, and for the first time in 10 years I'm considering the fact that all of those entries are a "gold mine". Each page holds my thoughts, feelings, ideas...and they're all at my disposal. Not only that, but I can use my own work as a personal mentor text. I can stalk my own sentences. If I find one that I like or think is well written, I can examine it and figure out why it's a good sentence. Then I can take that knowledge and apply it to the rest of my writing. Kappoww! This reading caused me to realize, for the first time, that mentore texts aren't just something a teacher can find and use, but that a student can also find and use. Not only can they be used to teach good writing, but they raise a students self esteem. "I did it, I wrote a good sentence!"