Field Placement Lesson

R. Cory Kinley

“Process of writing: Pre-writing”

General Objectives: The students will learn to implement prewriting as a tool to generate ideas and support toward selecting, shaping, focusing, and planning an efficient composition.

Rationale: My lesson is based on the research of educator Janet Emig. Emig’s research in the early seventies uncovered some discrepancies in student motivation to write “in class” as opposed to non-school, personal writing. She used the term “extensive writing” for the student’s school- sponsored compositions and the term “reflexive writing” to describe their self-sponsored compositions. Some of the characteristics of the observed students’ writing include: ill-prepared, detached prose, reportorial, mundane, void of emotion, and non-satisfactory. On the other hand, with most of the students’ “reflexive writing” she observed the opposite characteristics. I don’t want my students to exhibit the characteristics that Emig observed in “extensive writing”.
The goal of the lesson was to integrate, as well as possible, the factors that were lacking in students’ “extensive writing” with those factors that contributed to “reflexive writing” in the students. It is must be noted that Emig’s research deals with every facet of the composition process. My integration in this lesson deals with the role that context, stimuli, and prewriting and planning play in the process of composition.
First, the school-sponsored stimuli she observed usually deal with literature or other abstract ideas that are being studied. But, the self-sponsored stimuli she observed dealt with a wider range including “self” and “human relations” issues. So, in an effort to integrate, I decided to present the lesson in conjunction with a reflective essay assignment which my Co-op is going to implement. The poem “Richard Cory” is a great focus to help them reflect on themselves and the character of Richard Cory.
Next, she observed the “context” of students’ compositions which she described as the interveners and interventions of the students’ writing. In “extensive” writing, the students see the teachers as evaluators. In “reflexive” compositions, the writers see themselves or their peers as evaluators. In my lesson I will tell the students that I am going to have theme check one another's journal entries for completeness. This will integrate the evaluation as context.
Lastly, she observed a difference between prewriting and planning in the students’ composition process In the “extensive writing,” little time was aloud in class for prewriting and planning. However, in their “reflexive writing” the students thought about and planned what they wanted to write through a longer process. In the average school-sponsored compositions, the students just dove right into the draft so the compositions’ quality was hit or miss. My lesson shows the students the place prewriting has as an integral part of the entire writing process.


1.) “ In your reflective essays, how many of you used pre-writing?”
2.) ask a student whose hand was not raised, “what is pre-writing?” Field many answers
3.) “Why did you(or they) use pre-writing?” Field answers and write on board under “pre- writing” heading.
-some possibilities; “select a topic, gather information, organize ideas.”
- “Let’s keep these in mind for later.”
4.) “What kinds of pre-writing are there/what techniques can we use?”
-possibilities; “cluster, journal, free write their ideas on board under the heading “techniques.”

A. “Let’s cluster together. Let’s think about our topics for your last papers”; Happy/ Sad memories. Field topics and put into a cluster form.
-“See how many possibilities we have. We have plenty of ideas to start a paper.”

5.) “After we cluster/brainstorm to get ideas, what else can we do before we start the paper?” Field answers.
-Ask Rhonda, Beth, or Amy to share their free writing with the class.
6.) “Why is free writing helpful to our papers.” Field answers and add it to the first list. possibilities; gather and organize info.
7.) (Pass out the handouts)- “Here are some guidelines to look at when you begin a paper. (select students to read aloud) When you start to pre-write, use clustering and free writing to get you started.”
8.) “Now let’s look at the poem “Richard Cory” .” Have a student read it out loud. “In your journals write a reaction.” 2 minutes.
9.) Read the poem out loud to them, again having them writing a reaction.
10.) “You are already familiar with the reflective essay, now I want you to prewrite for about ten minutes on a reflective essay focusing on “Richard Cory”. I want you to pick a peer to look at your prewriting. It will be their job to assess your prewriting using the “Guidelines” handout as a guide. Mrs. George will want you to include this in your peer evaluations.”
11.) “Get to it and remember that everything takes practice. The more you prewrite the easier it will seem and the better your papers will become.”
Materials:
1.) Co-op required the “Guidelines for the Process of Writing” handout.
2.) “Richard Cory” by Edwin Arlington Robinson.
Evaluation:
The students will be evaluated by their contribution to the discussion and through peer critiques.

"RICHARD CORY"

by Edwin Arlington Robinson

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored and imperially slim.

And he was quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
“Good-morning”, and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich--yes, richer than a king--
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.

Return to Lesson Plan Home Page

Return to Education 360 Home Page

Self-assessment
Lesson #1
November 12, 1998

Overall, I would not consider the lesson successful. I don’t think this is due to any major flaw in my instruction for this particular lesson. The fact is that since my lesson on October 19, only two or three students continue to prewrite. These students came into the class already using prewriting. The reason that most of the students do not implement prewriting into their own writing is because they are not expected to--this classroom does not ecnourage prewriting on a regular basis. In fact, my 30 minute lesson was the most time spent on prewriting before or since. I have learned that each lesson we present can’t be thought of as series of individual units where the sum of the parts equals a whole. Rather, everything we teach must be included in a fluid continuum. All of the learning must be just as important a month after it has first been covered.
Although most of the students do not prewrite sufficiently, the class as a whole was familiar with the techniques and purposes of prewriting. Their familiarity took me by surprise. My surprise led to the most important mistakes I made. The biggest problem came with my Lecture-discussion approach. I chose this approach because I envisioned a lesson that would require the students to move the discussion along. However, because of my lack of practice with lecture discussion and because I underestimated the students’ knowledge, I did more lecturing than discussing. I had all of the answers to my questions already set. When the students offered something different, I ignored it. For instance I anticipated only two answers to the question: “What are some techniques in prewriting?” When I heard “freewriting” and “clustering,” I immediately included them in the list on the board. But, when Tom gave me “outlining” I did not include it on the list. I must use a more inductive approach where all contributions are important.
Although my presentation was lacking, the prewritng lesson in the classroom was much more effective than the one I presented to my peers in Ed. 360. I designed the lesson to be more student-centered. I didn’t overestimate their knowledge. And perhaps most importantly, I told them what the concept was and I allowed the class to create a model. The students were able to see Why and How to prewrite. The fact that they Don’t prewrite is a lesson that a curriculum should be designed for the benefit of the student not for convenience or brevity. I think the lesson moved one step closer to being effective. In Ed. 360 the lesson itself was a failure both in structure and method, but the major flaw in this revised lesson was my inexperience. With practice the latter can be fixed.