Final Project

1. My topic is in regards to English Teaching and Learning Disabilities. Specifically, I am very interested in discourses surrounding students with learning disabilities and how this might affect their written or oral communication.  I have a hard time pinning down exactly why this topic is important to me, because I don't plan on being a special education teacher, all I know is that I find it extremely interesting.  I am very interested in how the brain works so that is part of it, and part of my intrigue comes from having a step-sister who lives in a group home, and whose way of interacting with the world is so fascinating to me.  Also a big interest of mine is what the place of writing/English might be for students with learning disabilities.

2. I haven't done a lot of research yet, so this leaves me feeling that I am not ready to totally commit to a format to present this project in.  I may write a paper, or I may construct a website depending on what different kinds of info I come up with and what the best way to organize it is.

3. I have so many questions on this topic and I know I will need to determine a clearer focus at some point, hopefully my research will help me to decide.  I want to know how students with learning disabilities write, if/how it is different specifically in how they construct narrative discourses.   I want to know what the different methods are that are currently being implemented to teach English to students with learning disabilities, hopefully some research on which methods have been shown to be more effective.  Basically I am interested in finding ways to better reach students with learning disabilities but I want to be careful in examining their work and don't want to stifle their creativity while I am trying to help them learn.

Common Core close reading

*Tried to paste the passage in I am discussing below but it looked completely crazy.


The passage I chose is on page 46 of the Common Core standards, and it deals with Text Types and Purposes standard #3.  What I found interesting about reading the standards in general was that once I got to the standards for high school age students it has different standards for grades 9-10 than for grades 11-12, but they differ only very slightly.  Therefore my close reading is mostly a look at these differences.

To answer the first question of Gee's seven building tasks, the question of significance, I would say there is a definite emphasis on the significance of writing very purposefully.  For example, the passage mentions 'well-chosen' details, not just the use of details, as well as 'well-structured' event sequences, not merely that event sequences exist.  The important words here seem to be 'chosen' and 'structured', and not the word 'well' as that is a bit vague, but the phrases imply that the details and event sequences used in students' writing will be both 'chosen' and 'structured' (thought about purposefully).  The significance of both of these ways to write purposefully are further elaborated on in all of the subsets to the standard.  Another aspect of writing that is emphasized as significant is the idea of a coherent whole piece versus the individual smaller pieces of writing that comprise a piece that is defined here as having an introduction and conclusion.

For the question of practices/activities, I feel as though this section is practicing the act of not only guiding educators about what is important to teach, but it also engages in the mimicking of the content itself that it discusses.  This standard deals with writing effectively, and it describes the sequence with which a student should do so while also following that sequence itself.  It begins with subset a), which discusses how a piece of writing should begin.  The next few subsets focus on details and narrative techniques, what should be used in the 'body' of the piece, and the final subset focuses on how a proper conclusion should be written.  In this way the writing is also engaging in the act of demonstration to show how the writing it is talking about should look.

Question #3, regarding identities, I can only think of the writing adopting a kind of authority or instructional figure, that writes assuredly in order to make the writing seem viable.It is firm and formal and the numbering/lettering each subset separately instead of writing the standard out in one long statement/paragraph like I am here makes the standards seem clearly set and defined.

I find the question of relationships very similar to the question of identities, as both are impacted by what the reader is perceived to be.  The relationship here seems to be administrator to educator, or government body to administrator, or government body to educator.  Again, the use of numbering makes the piece seem more instructional, or like a set of rules, and not a two-way discussion.

What was interesting to me with regards to politics in this section is what I mentioned before regarding the differences between this particular standard for 9-10 graders and 11-12 graders.  There are two parts in this section that have additional details for 11-12 graders that are not listed for 9-10 graders.  The first difference is in subset a) in which the additional language 'and its significance' follows 'setting out a(n) observation'.  The second difference is in subset c) in which the following is written after the mention of following a sequence of events to create a coherent whole: 'build toward a particular tone and outcome (e.g. a sense of mystery, suspense, growth, or resolution.)'  These differences seem to emphasize the importance of sequencing a piece of writing over conveying what its significance is or developing a writers' voice, at least for 9-10 graders.  The fact that these two 'social goods' are only represented after the rest of them have been established makes it seem as though they are almost seen here as bells and whistles next to the truly important aspects of writing which seem to be much more CCR-friendly.

Question #6 regarding connections made in the piece of language was kind of a tricky one fore me but it seemed to be making the connection between good writing and user friendliness, that is, how clear and concise ones' writing is for the reader.  So, the writer and reader are inevitably connected here.  I think my bias for creative writing is rendering itself impossible to silence here as it was for the previous question.  I find it very glaring that this standard has no mention of writing to express oneself FOR oneself or for any kind of inherent benefit, or for anything related to oneself at all, but it is all related to the experience others have of ones' writing.  I am not saying I think this is an entirely bad thing because I don't know if there is a standard in the common core somewhere more related to this, it is possible, and I don't want to assume this is what the entire document sounds like.

For the final question regarding sign systems, again I feel the need to point out that this piece of writing emphasizes the importance of academic writing vs. creative writing.  It also emphasizes the importance of the written word as a way to communicate an idea.