Thanks for your comments on my research. I've been doing a consulting
thing in South Carolina for the past two weeks, so I'm sorry not to
respond sooner.
> Dear Marie--
>
> We definitely have common interests. Are you going to be in Denmark? if
> so, we should meet for sure.
Unfortunately I won't be in Denmark. I wish I could be. Do feel free to
email me privately any time, however.
> Can you provide the exact reference of your paper describing the research
> you mentioned, please ("_At the Point of Need: Teaching Basic and ESL
> Writers_, from Heinemann"?
Actually it's a book rather than a paper. It came out in 1991 from
Boynton/Cook, Heinemann in Portsmouth New Hampshire, and had a nice
forward by Nancy Martin. It should be in your library, I would think.
Be back home in another week and will check my mail more often then.
Marie
-------------------
Marie Wilson Nelson
National-Louis University
mnel who-is-at nlu.nl.edu
> Your research is extremely interesting for me. > I like your terms of
"positive and negative spiral." It nicely captures Jim > Wetsch's point
that process is product. Spiral with its quality and value is > the
outcome of a recursive process. >
Yes. We reap what we sow, so to speak. Or at least, we get what we
believe we see.
I don't think I realized until I reread them how many connections there
were between our research teams' findings and vygotskian ideas. Theose
two little volumes had shaped and reshaped my teaching for so many years.
Marie
> You wrote,
> > These positive spirals displayed successive aspects different from
the
> > negative sequence you described above. When teachers based methods on the
> > assumption that all can learn and looked for evidence for that belief
> > while sharing what they knew about how good writers write, students
> > experienced breakthroughs in (1) AWARENESS about how writing is done
> > (experienced worry about copy-editing on later drafts, for example). This
> > in turn triggered breakthroughs in (2) ATTITUDE (less writing anxiety,
> > more willingness to take risks) that were followed by changes in writing
> > (3) BEHAVIOR (less resistance, procrastination and concern for correctness
> > on first drafts, writing more honestly and choosing topics they cared
> > strongly about). These were then followed by (4) increased and improved
> > WRITING, which brought more positive (5) RESPONSES from peers and faculty.
>
> I have slightly different (community-of-practice -oriented) terminology to
> capture similar feature of what you call "positive spirals." Let's if you
> would agree with me that we are very close in our definitions:
> 1. NORMALIZATION of newcomers' experiences in a new practice. This means
> that the community of practice accepts newcomers' experiences as legitimate
> through a "normalizing discourse." For example, student's writing is seen
> not as failure to be clear but as a first draft of brainstorming of ideas.
> 2. ACCESS to the practice for newcomers. This means that old-timers
> prioritize participation for newcomers rather than, for example, competence.
> For instance, the teacher should prioritize and organize reply to students'
> ideas and feeling in their paper (the primary function of written
> communication) rather than correct their spelling. In my personal
> observation, the best way to disable an immigrant to speak is to correct his
> or her accent.
> 3. ADDRESSIVITY (SOCIAL RECURSIVITY) of newcomers' contributions: outcomes
> of newcomers' contributions are used by other members of the community and
> vice versa. For example, it can be beneficial if students write not only to
> the teacher but to other class members for their replies.
> 4. AUTHENTICITY (PSYCHOLOGICAL RECURSIVITY) of newcomer's contributions:
> "recycling" involvement into a new practice in other aspects of a newcomer's
> life. For example, students can find that essay writing can be useful for
> articulating their ideas for their non-academic interests.
> 5. MUTUAL ACCEPTANCE (MUTUAL RESPECT) of the newcomer by the community and
> the community by the newcomer. This means that newcomer's concerns emerging
> from his/her background, ways of life, beliefs, attitudes, and values,
> experiences are considered to be valid by the community and vice versa.
>
> Of course in the reality not all of these features usually come together but
> I found these principles useful both as reflective and as guiding tools.
> What do you think?
>
> I like your emphasis of what I call teacher's "ideology" and you refer it to
> teacher's "lenses" and "filter":
> >The recursive spiral you
> > describe above fits our teams' collective understanding of what happened
> > when teachers looked at writers' work through a negative lens (as
> > expressed in such common beliefs as "writers are born, not made" or "some
> > people can learn to write well, but others probably can't").
> >
> > When writing was viewed through the filter of such assumptions, we
> > observed downward spirals of increasing failure and frustration in
> > students and (as a result) similar downward spirals of increasing failure
> > and frustration (cynicism, burnout, increased elitism) on the part of
> > instructors who had chosen a negative lens. Student grades and scores
> > confirmed this negativity.
>
> I think teacher's ideology often guides the teaching design, however, the
> relationship can be more complex. For example, a teacher maybe not very
> skillful in his or her ideology to be guided. But I guess it is another
> issue.
>
> In any way, I have we have similar approaches to teaching as a design. I'm
> very interested in your experiences, inspirations, and thinking.
>
> I know that you are probably busy as a bee (I feel myself as a beehive :-)
> but let's keep talking as much as we can under these circumstances. I'm
> also interested what other people think.
>
> Eugene
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marie Nelson [mailto:mnel@nlu.nl.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 12:46 AM
> > To: Eugene Matusov
> > Cc: Marie Nelson; XMCA
> > Subject: Re: Non-reflective recursivity
> >
> >
> > Eugene,
> >
> > Sorry to be slow responding; I've been away.
> >
> > My personal experience studying how writing abilities develop suggests
> > that you are onto something when you suggest that motivation is related to
> > recursivity. I apologize for this long response, but your question
> > pointed directly to my research. Apologies to any for whom this is not
> > relevant.
> >
> > Eugene Matusov wrote:
> >
> > > Thinking about the relationship between recursivity and
> > reflexivity promoted
> > > by Dot, I came to an example of recursivity without
> > reflexivity. For awhile
> > > I was puzzled that some of my colleagues told me that they give
> > tests and
> > > exams in order to "make students learn." Now I think that they design a
> > > type of recursivity:
> > >
> > > 1) Lecture
> > > 2) Reading
> > > 3) Students' preparation for a test
> > > 4) Test
> > > 5) Grading
> > > 6) Sorting based on the grades (e.g., tracking)
> > > -------
> > > 7) Job (finally) based on the sorting, i.e.., further sorting
> > > This is a very recursive process but not very reflexive. It promotes
> > > students to learn to achieve or fail. They learn to hate many
> > things (e.g.,
> > > math and English) and do what other want them to do (or to resist doing
> > > that). This type of recursivity socialize many of the students in the
> > > extrinsic motivation (i.e., achievers) and in "lack of
> > motivation" those who
> > > are failed (i.e., failure). I think there is a strong
> > relationship between
> > > recursivity and motivation.
> >
> > Eugene, You have clearly defined the sequence of instructional conditions
> > (with accompanying patterns of mixed results) under which "negative
> > spirals of increasing frustration and failure" were observed in
> > (college-level) basic and ESL writers by five successive teams of (some
> > 40) teacher action researchers that I facilitated over a five-year span.
> > Working in a small-group writing tutorial center which students who lacked
> > university-level writing abilities attended two days a week, these
> > teachers studied how their approaches affected basic writers (those who
> > "fail" in your outline above), adapting methods daily to make them more
> > responsive. Together, we also adapted the program as we went along until
> > at the end it was far more successful than it had been before at offering
> > scaffolding/instruction within what we believe were students' individual
> > (and collective) zpd's.
> >
> > As best our five research teams could tell, the downward or upward
> > direction of students' writing progress depended on the (conscious or
> > unconscious) choice each teacher made of the lens through which to look
> > when assessing (and responding to) student work. The recursive spiral you
> > describe above fits our teams' collective understanding of what happened
> > when teachers looked at writers' work through a negative lens (as
> > expressed in such common beliefs as "writers are born, not made" or "some
> > people can learn to write well, but others probably can't").
> >
> > When writing was viewed through the filter of such assumptions, we
> > observed downward spirals of increasing failure and frustration in
> > students and (as a result) similar downward spirals of increasing failure
> > and frustration (cynicism, burnout, increased elitism) on the part of
> > instructors who had chosen a negative lens. Student grades and scores
> > confirmed this negativity.
> >
> > Just for the record, in case someone wants more support for these
> > patterns, I documented these negative spirals of decreasing motivation and
> > worsening attitudes, along with "upward spirals of increasing confidence
> > and success" in _At the Point of Need: Teaching Basic and ESL Writers_,
> > from Heinemann.
> >
> > >> Another thought, when someone tries to reform the system and throw
> > >> away the > tests and grades, one should think about recursivity issue
> > >> to promote an > alternative recursive design. > > What do
> > you think?
> >
> > Absolutely, at least that has resulted from the "reforms" we made. I
> > would be interested in knowing if what follows fits what you have in mind:
> >
> > When teacher-researchers withheld grades until the end of the term,
> > adopted methods based on the assumption that everyone can learn to write,
> > facilitated continuing small groups in which bonding and peer support for
> > writing problems could be mobilized, and focused group attention on
> > expanding strengths in each groupmate's work, students experienced upward
> > spirals of growing confidence and success with writing assignments from
> > across the university.
> >
> > These positive spirals displayed successive aspects different from the
> > negative sequence you described above. When teachers based methods on the
> > assumption that all can learn and looked for evidence for that belief
> > while sharing what they knew about how good writers write, students
> > experienced breakthroughs in (1) AWARENESS about how writing is done
> > (experienced worry about copy-editing on later drafts, for example). This
> > in turn triggered breakthroughs in (2) ATTITUDE (less writing anxiety,
> > more willingness to take risks) that were followed by changes in writing
> > (3) BEHAVIOR (less resistance, procrastination and concern for correctness
> > on first drafts, writing more honestly and choosing topics they cared
> > strongly about). These were then followed by (4) increased and improved
> > WRITING, which brought more positive (5) RESPONSES from peers and faculty.
> >
> > Positive responses ("That took guts to write!", "Where'd you get the idea
> > to start your story that way?" "The field of art history could use more
> > writers like you") functioned as "rewards," increasing basic writers' (1)
> > AWARENESS (that they could succeed) and kicking their growing confidence
> > and motivation into higher orbits, thus kick-starting the upward spiral
> > again.
> >
> > RE your last question, I believe it was in large part because we withheld
> > grades, giving only one grade (pass/no credit) at the end of each term,
> > that our results stood in strong contrast to the failures students had
> > previously experienced--which I believe are like the failures that you
> > describe above. It was also a highly reflexive process--the systematic
> > study of our beliefs, methods and results--by which these more positive
> > upward spirals were made possible.
> >
> > I would be very interested in your response, if you have time.
> >
> > Marie
> > -------------------
> > Marie Wilson Nelson
> > National-Louis University
> > mnel who-is-at nlu.nl.edu
> >
>
>
-------------------
Marie Wilson Nelson
National College of Education
National-Louis University