Planner? I hardly know her!

Reading "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing" by Flower and Hayes was a bizarre time. In it, the duo talks about the process it takes to write papers. Not gonna lie, I never really thought about a process. Usually I just start writing and let my brain go wild on the paper. Not like Strong Bad wild, but I could never find the importance of prior planning when it comes to writing.

In 10th grade, my teacher noticed how poorly my charisma translated when doing discussions to actual speeches. She said I became a lot more robotic, rigid, and monotone. The more I thought about it, the more she was right. By creating a detailed outline I feel like I am trapped into doing those lines and those lines only, even if they only sound good on the page. Ever since then I have felt like I betray myself when I don't live in the moment.

Honestly, I tried so dang hard to follow the steps of the paper, and I just couldn't do it. I kept having difficulty articulating what I wanted to say, deciding what to say, and deciding what is not as smart. When I did say something, it felt awkward. I tried for about an hour and got pretty much nothing done other than a paragraph. Now I'm just back to my old, ranty, self and I feel great about writing this.

Of course there are drawbacks to this. I reread this for the sake Flower and Hayes, and I asked myself:  "Does my hyperlink of a Strong Bad email help or hinder my argument?" When I ask how it relates, I can't really justify having it in there. I mean yes, it does show how some people can go gung-ho and write, but I feel like it doesn't add much to my argument. There are probably much better examples I could use. I could easily have added one of those "TOP TEN IMPROVISED FILM MOMENTS" to justify how a person can do their own thing and create a powerful moment without pre-planning. But honestly I cringe at those kind of videos. To add something different would be lying about who I am.


But obviously, not everyone is like me. Some people prefer the order, the stability, and the calm that comes with proper planning, and as an educator I gotta make sure that I can show them how to do it that way. It'd be super awkward if I told a student to follow your heart when they aren't as headstrong as  I am. I need to look out for all those children because something don' t work out for everyone. Some people can get lost, and that's why I really like the idea of having a goal orientated system for learning. If a person is lost, and can't figure out where to go next, they can go back and reread their goal. To some, Climbing a mountain is a lot less intimidating when you're just focusing on the next 10 steps.

This why America did so poorly in the Vietnam war 

To argue that either way, planning fully ahead, or writing in the moment is bad is completely wrong. Both of the processes are very good, but both have a time and place for everything. Would someone want me to be fun, excited, and lively at a funeral? I'd say no. That is not the time. In fact, at my Grandmother's funeral I wrote out I want to say because to make jokes or puns would be in terrible taste. I know I said that I hate doing writing ahead, but to refuse to acknowledge the cons of my methods would have been disastrous. 

It's important to find a style that fits us, but as educators we need to find a lot of processes that work for all. We can only do this by expanding our knowledge through syncretism. Eventually you can find enough different ways to think about things, and you can pick and choose what works best.

Profile

Hi everyone, my name is Max Thiede. I am an English Education Major at UWM.
I'm Max Thiede. I also love to paint, cook, and bake, though my schoolwork has been giving little time to cook for fun. I try to keep an open mind about everything, but in reading I find myself typically drawn to satire, as they can show the pros and cons without arguing for one idea or the other. In my free time I like to go hiking and running. 

I am drawn to education because I believe that giving others the strength to critically think is the greatest gift you can give.

In regards to my last post.

Yesterday, I went to Riverside High School in Milwaukee. While there, I found out about how few rooms there actually had smartboards. This is very problematic because while technology is important, people don't actually have those. By withholding these technologies that give an important step, we are hindering the power that teachers have to enhance their students lives. But on the flip side, certain schools do have only 30% attendance rate. Are these children really deserving of a high quality education when they don't show up? I'm honestly quite torn because it IS difficult to choose between the few highly dedicated in low income students when you can offer the same things to schools that are more interested? Should we change school from region based to skill based in order to allow those who work harder to get a higher education, or would this only cause those who are struggling with a chance to improve to fall lower and lower in the ranks?

There's a lot of questions we have to ask ourselves as educators and it's very difficult. There are no easy answers for encouraging those to succeed This is why politicians probably come in and try to gain ground and administrate different plans. Politicians make their power based on promises, and education is one of the few areas were we can't seem to instantly improve. So instead we get charlatans who go in and change things without understanding the current system (If you're wondering I have a love/hate relationship with Scott Walker) While sometimes things can improve, politicians tend to be far too away from the grown floor to make reasonable decisions about education.

Allow me to string this mess of a post together... Using tech in the classroom is a very new and experimental thing. Why don't we experiment in lower quality schools in order to see their effects? I can understand that having a consistent control group is important, and low attendance schools can't offer it, but is is possible that technology can be used to better relate, and therefore make lower attendance schools increase attendance? I've been trying to find reports of it, but none talk about much other than the fact of inequality and it's existence. Pedagogy is a science, and we need to approach it as such. You can't just use one type of education to further the course of technology (much like how Med Schools only used to use male bodies).

The highest technological advances come along for two reasons: necessity (polio vaccination) and competition (Coca-Cola). While I realize that it's a bit silly to compare a disease to a soda, it's important to note that we have such a vast selection of high-quality tasting soft drinks because they are trying to compete with Coca-Cola, each finding their own niche market of success. By offering these same technology to different levels, we may find different uses for the technology not shown before. While I think it is expensive, I thinkthe only the way to improve education quality in lower quality schools is not by administering from afar, rather literally getting in there and trying to find ways to improve.

Technology in the Classroom

With the rise of digital technology comes new trends. While mine and the generation before us had chalkboards, more and more classes are getting smartboards. Personally I think that this is a very good thing to happen to education. Things can be much more interactive with the students than ever thought possible. It also makes it so those with bad handwriting can still add to the class without fear of embarrassment from the other students. Another good thing it does is allows a quicker deployment of media. Before it used to be a pain to cart the VCR from class to class, but now it can just be put on the smartboard! It saves tons of time and is much higher quality. The most important thing that digital teaching does is prepare those for the real world. While some older people tend not to use as much technology, it is important to realize that that job sector is becoming increasingly digital in America as industry becomes outsourced.
 Of course this is to say that there are not all pitfalls. Some technology may be difficult to adapt to. The most prominent difficulty I've seen is someone switching UIs from Mac to Windows or Linux. When done without any explanation, a student can be left behind by the class and will struggle to find all the ins, outs, and shortcuts in the new UI. It can also be very distracting. I know I've spent a good chunk of my late junior classes making Gangnam Style themed mashups and hacking into things. Another problem many see (though I find it to be a bit unfounded) is that our technology usage will create more children with ADHD than there ever was before. While this is possible, we have only recently been correctly and accurately diagnosing ADHD. Overall I think digital technology is going to be very important for not only education, but the economy, arts, music, culture, and fostering intellectual growth.