We definitely have common interests. Are you going to be in Denmark? if
so, we should meet for sure.
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"? 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.
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
>