Reflection 9

I absolutely loved the concept of using actual texts to not only demonstrate the proper traits of writing, but also to support and influence students’ own writings and perspectives. While I can recall reading throughout my earlier years of education for content and to discuss the various devices that might have been employed by the author, it was never quite spoken of, especially before the last couple of years of high school, as to how the novels and other books I was reading could and, probably should, whether as a deterrent or encouragement, sculpt my own writing.  This, I think, is a tremendous lapse in the education of many a youth, if they are not receiving the opportunity to see the manners in which these two processes build and expound upon one another.

When I read the quote, “‘There’s a big difference between a five-paragraph essay and an essay that has five paragraphs” I immediately underlined it, as the formulaic style of writing portrayed in this one phrase speaks to the methods that I, as well as many others, I am certain, grew up with (Culham, 2014, p. 33). Still today, frequently when some piece of writing is required in a college classroom, I often hear the question, how long should it be? Rather than being taught to write what is necessary to convey message properly, numerous individuals have been taught to follow a stringent structure and are fairly familiar with being told the precise bounds of our writing. Though such a framework may be necessary and even required when first learning, it should not be emphasized to the extent that it is viewed as the only possible way of communicating in the written form. Writing should be a creative outlet, through which individuals may express their points of view in the fashion that is most befitting of their purpose. Thus, an excellent method of exposing students to the unlimited number of ways to express themselves through writing is by allowing them to read, as a foundation and source of growth.

Finally, from this one chapter I thought it beneficial that the author stressed the fact that these “mentor texts” could be found nearly anywhere (Culham, 2014, p. 34). Whether a teacher has the adequate resources at school, through a classroom or school library or not, these bits of writing can be discovered in any number of forms and not solely in the shape of an academic text.

Although still informative, I was not as affected by the second set of articles, “Reading and Writing With Understanding” and “Reciprocity Between Reading and Writing: Strategic Processing as Common Ground”. In the first portion, it seemed beneficial for the audience to understand how interconnected reading and writing are, and the statement, “just as readers can get lost in the world of a book, writers can get lost in the language of their ideas”, seemed to highlight just that (Hampton & Resnick, 2009, p. 130). Moreover, it appears key to realize that, although it may originally seem to be, reading is not the uninvolved activity while writing, on the other hand, is the opposite. Both should include constant thinking and processing in order to be done to their fullest potential. Overall, the apparent intention of these articles was to indicate that these distinct activities could be used as systems of support for each other, and the same tools utilized in one operation are likely to find uses in the other.