Entry #2 (CG)

Hello,

One concept that loomed over my head while engaging in this week's reading was metacognition, or "thinking about thinking" as my university supervisor explained to me once. I think back to my years in high school and college when writing essays was a process more so about getting a work accomplished well than understanding the process of how I plan to achieve my goal. In "Understanding Composing," Perl address how, for some writers like Anne, "rereading occurs after every few phrases; for others, it occurs after every sentence" (364). This quote resonated with my process because I am 10/10 exactly like Perl says, pausing after every phrase and sentence like a car who's engine is on the edge of dying, stopping abruptly. Skrt-skrt-skrt. Part of the reason why I feel I need to stop and re-read again and again is related to my own felt sense, this feeling of satisfaction and "mmm yes, this is it" kind-of feeling that perfectly captures what I want to say. As a student, I don't recall any teacher or professor discussing that felt sense in the writing process, although I am not sure how knowing about felt sense would help me. However, Perl also poses the question, "Do skilled writers call on their capacity to sense more readily than unskilled writers?" (366). I believe Perl is asking us to think and brainstorm how we can get first-year "beginner" writers to become more in-tune with their felt sense and their meta-awareness of their process. As teachers, we may teach the process, but is it equally important to be explicit about the process behind the process? 

In this same regard, the second chapter of the Lindemann textbook made me think about the explicit teaching of the word "writing." I can't imagine a teacher taking the time to break down the word and definition of "writing" because it's just that... writing! Yet, when Lindemann chunks and dissects a working definition of writing, more information is uncovered over what I previously associated with the term. The part that struck me the most was the excerpt about an audience and teachers often ask students to write for them without giving them opportunities to write for a variety of audiences. I thought about the AP English Language course I (roughly) taught last year when, in the first two units of the course, I broke down the rhetorical triangle and the relationship between speaker-audience-text as well as the exigence, purpose, message, etc. The students whom I taught struggled understanding what I thought were "basic" concepts because no one ever told them or taught them to think explicitly about the "back-stage" pre-writing (referring to audience, message, context, code, etc.) before they actually write. I now understand what a previous reading suggested, that writing is approximately 70% pre-writing, 10% writing, and 20% revising. It makes sense! Duh, Cesar!

When I spoke to my Credential program advisor about what I planned for my future, she strongly advised a graduate program in English over education because it is much better to be highly competent in the subject you teach; the "teaching" strategies and methodologies will develop over time. I am grateful for the background that I have because I can blend the reading with situations I encounter in my classroom and how I would address it, what lessons I would plan, activities, etc. Still, I wish I could see how other English teachers, either high school or college, apply the teaching of process in their classrooms because I learn best when the material is modeled in front of me.

CG