thesisthoughts

When I mentioned to GP, my supervisor, that I was intending to attend the AATE conference in Hobart, his first reaction was: “Of course you are going to give a paper…”. I wasn’t intending on presenting a paper, in fact I thought I would attend my first conference as a listener and as a learner, and that some time in the future I would try my hand at presenting my work. I had no idea how this type of conference works in Australia, even in Israel I have only been to a few.

As usual, when encouraged by my supervisor to present my work to others, I felt inclined to try. I sat down (fairly quickly) and prepared my abstract. I told myself that if it wasn’t accepted I would still have the rich learning experience I was looking forward to, and that if it was accepted, I would worry about it later.

I have written enough about my anxiety and have shared my experiences delaying the preparation of the paper. I will now try to explore how the paper went (from my subjective point of you, of course). I am writing this three weeks after returning from the conference.

My paper was set to be given in a fancy board room with a large table and comfortable meeting chairs. From a technical point of view, everything went according to plan and my Powerpoint presentation worked well.

I was convinced that nobody would come to hear me, especially as this was the last session of the conference and there were another 14 sessions going on at the same time. Being up against a large session on the National Curriculum was especially tough competition.

In the end, I was relieved that I had a small audience and began my presentation on time. I was thrilled that the educators present stopped me to ask questions and to comment. If I had been worried about time, the paper fitted the hour perfectly.

I was especially pleased that each of the participants (those I didn’t know) shared what she was taking away from the session.

I am still trying to build my identity as a researcher, it’s a title I don’t yet feel comfortable wearing. I can honestly say that daring to present at AATE was a significant step in seeing myself in this new role. I’m happy I chose to present some of my Lit review in the paper, I feel it was relevant and important background to the work I have been doing.

Having one of the participants email me and then look up my blog was special for me. I thank her for her interest.

That seems to be it for my Masters thesis – squeezing two journal articles and a conference paper out of it has been rewarding and satisfying. Now it is clear to me that I will need to find new angles and experiences to write about.

I have some ideas, but no time!

I have one week left here in Australia and am already apprehensive about saying goodbye to family. It is comforting to know that my studies will bring me back again in the not too distant future.

Often when I read Faultlines, Ward’s informative blog on writing a PhD, I encounter inspiring materials which help me as a writer and as a researcher. I have written here before that I began blogging after reading an article by Ward on her blogging experiences.

Today I read about Lilia’s honest post on publishing a PhD which is both exposing and highly personal.

Another wonderful source of information I discovered through Ward is the inspiring How I write series from Stanford – transcripts, videos etc.

I heard about this new report, Writing in the 21st Century, by Kathleen Blake Yancey,  from Yankel on his blog and am very grateful for the link. The paper traces perceptions of writing and theories of teaching writing (Yancey uses the term ‘composition’) through  the 20th century and into the 21st century.

One of the main points she raises is that writing has never been respected or emphasized in society (and education) like reading. An interesting reason for this is presented. Yancey suggests that this is connected to the use of reading to convey messages (social, religious, political…). Reading is associated with control, writing can be used for self control.

Another interesting point is the place reserved for reading in the family and the community. Reading is associated with warm memories of story reading, church gatherings etc and memories of writing are more likely to be associated with difficulty or loneliness. The historical connection between writing and the labour of text production is also discussed.

The place of writing in testing  and the role of testing in the teaching of writing are explored.

I like the way each part of the report concludes with a remark about writing outside school. Despite what happened (or didn’t happen) in writing classrooms, people continued to compose. The same is true today. One of the challenges facing us  as teachers is to learn from our students what they are doing with writing outside the classroom in social contexts a) in order to learn from them about what interests them and motivates them to write and b) to force us to search for writing projects which are based in social contexts and are relevant and exciting.

New models of teaching writing must see writing as an intellectual activity done in social contexts. If we use the technologies available to us and believe in ourselves as teachers and our pupils as developing writers, the sky is the limit. The author uses a term coined by Deborah Brandt, “self-sponsored writing”. I wonder how we can give this writing more attention in the classroom in order to encourage it, applaud it and allow it to motivate our students in their “school sponsored writing”.

As I experiment with blogging in the classroom, I am convinced that that has the potential to form part of a new curriculum which takes into account that writing has changed, is changing and that many of our students are actually writers.

After the last course at N, one of the teachers tried the peer revision strategies we explored, in her grade 2 classroom. She remarked that she could never (and would never) have tried the activity with her pupils if we had not really modelled and experienced it in the course.

I was happy to receive feedback on classroom developments coming out of the course and to hear that the time we are spending in personally experiencing strategies and reflecting on them is worthwhile.

The session at K was also fruitful. After a lecture (shortish) on revision practices and teaching revision, the teachers worked in groups to write a list of specific criteria for evaluating teacher narratives. They worked well and we had the opportunity to feel the difference between specific and general criteria.

Afterwards, the teachers worked in pairs – one as a writer and the other as an editor to work on the revision of their first narratives. They stayed close to the process I suggested for use in the classroom and they worked busily for almost an hour. Now I am waiting to see the revised narratives and to read the upcoming reflective pieces on the process.

Yesterday, an hour before I left to teach my PL course at N., I had a phone call from the head of the centre where the course is held. She had bad news. There are not enough teachers enrolled in the course and the Head of PL in the area has decided to close down the course. Of course she explained that it has nothing to do with the content or the quality of the course, it is a purely financial decision.

My immediate reaction was anger. Why now? Where had they been for the past two months? Why didn’t they tell me before I sat all weekend preparing my lecture? And what about the teachers? They have attended four sessions and they won’t be recognised.

The answers I received were that the teachers will be able to join another course, even though they are also well into the syllabus. Is that taking the learning of the teachers seriously? Do they think these teachers are only studying to show that they are doing the compulsory 60 hours to get their salary rise?

I immediately wanted them to cancel the session, to call the teachers and tell them not to come. When I cooled down a little, I decided that that wasn’t fair and that I wanted to meet them face-to-face. I knew the teachers would be both disappointed and angry and that is how they reacted. They were angry that the learning process we have begun could be cut short. They sat down to write an email to those in charge saying that they are extremely involved in the learning process and that their students are also undergoing changes in their learning and writing as a result of the course.

I don’t know where things stand today, in the next few days I will speak to some of my peers and will try to find some more participants. Ironically, we had a new teacher join us yesterday. She remarked that she was surprised to find the group members talking in a common language and she explained that she could feel that the group had undergone significant learning together.

In spite of everything going on, we held the session. I dared doing something I haven’t done before. I asked the participants to do the writing task from last years national Meitzav literacy examination for 7-8 year olds (grade 2). Surprisingly nobody objected and the discussion afterwards was fascinating. We looked at the process each teacher underwent as she attempted the task. We discussed the differences between the texts produced and explored the teaching necessary to bring young pupils to success in similar situations.

This morning one of the teachers commented that the experience and the following discussion were very important and gave her a lot to think about. I’m happy I didn’t cancel.

As far as the future goes… who knows?

Free image: http://www.everystockphoto.com/photo.php?imageId=694082

• I was more experienced, my lesson plan and content were better rehearsed
• My laptop connected easily to the projector and I could begin with the photo story presentation I had prepared on writing
• The group was much bigger and more varied (25 teachers from grades 1 – 6, some of them literacy coordinators).
• The centre itself has much more comfortable learning conditions, tables, chairs etc.
• I had never met the teachers and they were eager (more eager?) to see what I have to offer.
• I was excited by the prospect of contributing to the schools in such a remote, rural area. The centre is a two hour drive from my place (which is also far away from the big smoke!).

Surprisingly, I enjoyed the long country drive. As long as it doesn’t rain on Sundays, I will be fine.

Some of the things that interested me and demand thought and lengthy discussion are:

• At least 3 of the teachers repeatedly remarked that writing is a born trait. Each time the idea arose I tried to attach a question mark to it. I commented that we will attend to this question during the course.
• Many of the teachers were in hysterics when they read the description of the final assignment. A few remarked that they may have to drop out of the course because of the writing component. I tried to calm them down.

It is disturbing that some of the teachers who enrolled in a course on teaching writing aren’t 100% convinced that they have the ability to change the way their pupils view writing and write. One of my aims in the first meeting was to start a questioning process, one in which they will critically examine their own practice and  their beliefs concerning themselves as teachers and their pupils.

My second narrative / article has been accepted by the English in Australia  journal and should appear early in 2009. I do need to do some alterations and they need to be in by mid – January. Once they are are in I will be able to say that my thesis is well and truly done.

In the meantime I need to make some changes to my blog – it will be developing from an MEd thesis blog into a PhD blog and I will have pages devoted to the professional learning courses I am leading. The only problem is finding time for everything. Working full time at school and planning lectures doesn’t leave too much writing time. I am waiting for the Channukah holidays, only three weeks to go…

I am happy to write that one of the articles I wrote out of my thesis has been accepted by a journal that I value, English Teaching: Practice and Critique. My narrative is supposed to appear in the December issue.

I have been thinking about how texts change, develop and transform. I see the effort I put into writing my thesis having extra benefits. I am aware that texts are very much influenced by the context and the time of writing. As I revised the narrative I asked myself often whether I would be able to write the text now, 3-4 months after leaving the uni framework and the intensive writing environment I was in.  

I am still waiting for feedback on the my second narrative…

While writing this thesis I was running a professional development program for teachers of grades two to six. The name of the twenty eight hour course was “Improving Literacy in a Heterogeneous Class”. The teachers voluntarily signed up.  I began the course by asking the fourteen teachers participating to fill in a questionnaire about themselves, their teaching experience and their expectations of the course. I included a list of possible topics and asked them to mark those most relevant and important to them. I was not surprised to find that the most pressing topic for all of the participants was the teaching of writing and supporting struggling writers.  I opened the third meeting by asking the teachers to write for ten minutes in silence, the topic being an experience they have had teaching writing. I told them that we would be discussing those pieces after the writing period was over.  One teacher immediately left the room, a toilet or coffee break I assumed. Another took out her cell phone and began clicking furiously. Others doodled quietly in their notebooks, began listing points or began to fill lines with Hebrew script.  I sat and watched them, uncomfortable with the squirming that was going on in several of the seats. Each minute that went past was like five, my watch didn’t seem to move. I forced myself to wait ten minutes, resisting my urge to cut the time down to seven or eight minutes.  Silence was kept in the room for most of the time, although occasionally there were embarrassed giggles or a whisper.  When the time was up, some of the teachers were still busily writing their narratives and were sorry to stop. Others looked relieved and were waiting to get on with the seminar.  In the discussion that followed I was interested in hearing what had happened to the participants in those ten minutes, what they had felt and what they had experienced and done in that time.  Many of the teachers commented that they are unused to writing on demand and that they felt uncomfortable. Some confessed that they are not used to writing at all. Several remarked that the time limit and the expectation of sharing their writing pressured them. At least two of the teachers didn’t write at all in the ten minute period. Only two or three confided that they enjoyed the writing experience.  We looked in detail at what had been done in that time and saw how the writing process is different for different people. Afterwards we discussed the implications for these differences in our classrooms. One of the teachers who didn’t write anything, an experienced grade six teacher, explained to the group that she isn’t a writer. “People are either born writers or they aren’t, I’m not” she said. The group discussed this statement. Is it true? If it is, what does it mean for the teaching of writing? I added that this is one of the major misconceptions held by struggling writers in our classes.  I asked the teachers if anyone was willing to share their text with us. Two of the first volunteers started to tell their story without looking at the page. I stopped them and reassured them that it is clear to everyone that this is the roughest of rough draft but that we want to hear what is on the paper.  Two of the pieces we heard were well structured, interesting stories. We were amazed by the writers’ style and clarity. At the end of the session I explained that our next meeting would not be face to face, that we would be meeting on the virtual campus. Each teacher was required to do three things, firstly to revise her story about the teaching of writing (or write another story) and to post it on the assigned private discussion board. The second task was to reflect on the teaching story and on the experience of writing one, I supplied possible directions for this. The third task was to read stories from other group members and respond.  It took ages and lots of encouragement for the first teacher to post a story. She wrote about a poetry anthology she had successfully produced at her school. The poems were all connected to Israel’s sixtieth birthday. This teacher told how she had created a poetry unit suitable for each different age group, chosen appropriate poetry to teach, and encouraged the children to write. Every child in the school had writing published in the festive booklet. She told her story modestly but proudly and expressed her personal excitement and satisfaction with the project. A few days after this story appeared, comments began to appear, most of them congratulating the teacher on her success in the project but also on being the first to contribute a story. Questions also appeared. Gradually a few other stories appeared on the site and the discussion was lively.  Unfortunately only five of the participants took part in the discussion. At our next meeting, I devoted time to the oral reading of those stories posted on the campus and gave those teachers time to share their experiences with the group. I was sure that my enthusiasm, together with showing the participants that it is possible to complete the task, would motivate the others to write and share their stories. A few weeks later, I am still waiting… Although I know that time is a central factor in any work I do with teachers, here I know that the type of task assigned was significant in the low rate of participation.  I am continually aware that these teachers have not been asked to write anything of this nature for a very long time, some of them since they were at school. Another factor is that in a twenty eight hour course many of the teachers do not know each other and may feel vulnerable as a result.  I have tasted this kind of work with teachers and find it far more meaningful than choosing a topic, planning a lecture or a workshop, giving them my knowledge or experience and going home.  When I read the stories written, I was greatly aware of what I have been learning, that every teacher has something to say, that each teacher possesses professional knowledge which can be a wonderful starting point for collaborative learning. S, a second year teacher, had been very quiet and reserved in the first two sessions. We discussed writing in the third meeting and I brought examples of authors talking about the writing process and about how laborious composition is. Suddenly, S shyly told the group that she keeps a personal diary and that because she lives alone she comes home and pours her day into writing. She confessed that writing is an important part of her day. The narrative S wrote and posted was written in very simple language but told a very powerful story of her battle to get her second grade pupils to write. She told us how she used to spend each Sunday morning hearing stories from her class about what they had done on the weekend. She was frustrated that it was always the same children who related experiences and that many remained silent. She told that it was difficult for many to choose just one experience to share.  One day, S gave her pupils special notebooks and told them that they were going to write what they wanted to share from their weekend and that afterwards those that want to can tell their story. She was shocked by the result. Firstly, everybody wrote, including those who usually don’t share and her struggling writers. Secondly, many more children were willing to tell their stories. S, excited by this lesson, decided to continue.  In the weeks that followed, S asked her pupils to write every Sunday morning and was happy that the children wrote willingly and that the texts produced were more and more complex. More and more pupils asked to share their work. As a result of the reflection S did when writing her narrative for our group, she started asking the class to write on other occasions, after recess for example. Another addition was that she herself started writing while her class was busy with their heads down. She used the time for reflective writing on teaching issues. In the weeks that followed, writing became an accepted mode of communication in S’s class. When children were involved in an argument or had a problem, she asked them to first organize their thoughts by writing them in the notebook and that afterwards she would be happy to listen to them. It worked. When S got to school after her day off, she would find a pile of notes waiting for her on her desk. Subject teachers who taught the class were surprised when they began to receive written communication from the young children.  S received positive feedback on her work from the members of our group and also heard ideas for continuing and expanding her work. I found it very satisfying that through this activity she realized that she has something significant to share with a group of experienced teachers. Many of the veteran teachers certainly had something to learn from this shy and nervous early career teacher. I realized that S was similar to her shyer pupils, those that only dared to share a story when they had it firmly on paper.  There is no tradition of composing teacher narratives and collaborating on them in this part of Israel. There are presently no formal options for professional learning through dialogic writing and discussion. Despite the fact that this small scale experience was only partly successful, I am optimistic that significant learning frameworks can be established for Israeli teachers in this direction.  In order to succeed, I believe teachers need to know ahead of time that this will be the framework of the seminar and that they know they will be committed to experience the writing and discussing of teacher narratives. A mix of experienced and early career teachers is likely to be preferable – building on the enthusiasm and burning need for collaboration amongst newer teachers and the experience and knowledge of veteran educators.  I have already taken the first few steps. I have surprisingly managed to convince the coordinator of language and literacy in the northern area of Israel, that this is the way we should be going in our PD for next year. Most of the courses we will be offering will deal with the teaching of writing and they will all be structured around teacher collaboration and the writing and sharing of narratives.  If we begin with a respect for the knowledge the teachers bring with them and their honest desire to raise the achievement levels of their pupils in writing, I hope they will sign up and then be open, flexible and active participants.

In this article which is directed at librarians, the author argues that writing for publication in professional journals is an effective form of PD.

An important claim presented here is that although learning to reflect on one’s practice is not simple, it can be learned.

“…writing can become a creative dialogue with oneself, drawing out the better professional within – and by doing so one can become a true ‘reflective practitioner’ ” (p. 5).

The author continues to describe writing as a means of creating a dialogue with peers and “connecting and interacting with the profession at large” (p. 6).

Joint admits that in writing for publication you are presenting your practice for the inspection by others and that this in itself stimulates the writer to produce higher quality work.

Joint, N. (2006). Enhancing professional development by writing for publication in library and information science. Library Review, 55(1), 5-7. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com