# data[].attributes.body
Mills wants writers to think of their writing as craft and they are a craftsman/person. Writers need to think of themselves as specialists in the craft of writing. Before I even finished reading the first paragraph, I was making an analogy and thinking of that in terms of a chef or weaver (I'm thinking of a previous reading in this course). A chef or weaver is an expert in their craft and there are certain things they do to sustain and improve their craft. They also learn from others who are skilled in their respective craft. According to Mills, writers need to do likewise and “exchange information about their actual ways of working” (p. 195) so that is what he proceeds to do in his chapter (Appendix). In this chapter, he addresses and communicates to students as a master would an apprentice.

Mills emphasizes the connection of life with work. Rather than separate the two, a writer’s work is enhanced by connecting life with work because “as a scholar you have the exceptional opportunity of designing a way of living which will encourage the habits of good workmanship” (p. 196). Mills says, “learn to use your life experience in your intellectual work” (p. 196). That is what I’m attempting to do in my project for this class and I’m guessing that is what my classmates are doing, too. We each have different life experiences and we are using those to inform our writing projects for this class. When I looked at my classmates’ outlines they shared before spring break and thought back to their introductory microautoethnographies, I could see some connection between their experiences and the topics they’ve chosen to write about. Although I didn’t mention it in my autoethnography, I became intrigued by MOOCs more than ten years ago and immersed myself in that educational movement simply out of curiosity. Now, I’m attempting to use that life experience to inform and direct my writing project for this class.

Mills recommends journals and files as methods of keeping track of life experiences and ideas for our craft of writing. Fortunately for me, MOOCs are online so I can easily go back and see what I’ve done in the past. However, I was struck by Mills’ exhortation to both trust and be skeptical of our own experience (p. 197). So, I am attempting to trust my experience by having a section about the history of MOOCs, but I’m trying to be skeptical of my experience by not drawing on that as my evidence. That’s why I decided to enroll in new MOOCs to gain a fresh experience and see how things are now, rather than relying on how things were in the past.

Writing an article about MOOCs has been an idea in my mental file for a while and I need to move on beyond the idea stage. Mills’ advice to sort out project ideas into subdivision (p. 198) reminds me that my MOOC idea can result in many writing projects because all of the aspects of MOOCs can’t be covered in one article.

Mill’s advice about surrounding one’s self with others in order to discuss topics (p. 201) was encouraging to me because I’m currently part of a Slack group with people I met while taking MOOCs. I think I need to bounce my ideas off of them. Most importantly, though, being in Prof. Cole’s class is allowing me to be surrounded by great writers who can help me improve.

The section in Mills about relying on reason more than empirical evidence caught my attention because I have collected data to use in my project. According to Mills, I need to work out my argument through reasoning first, then I know what empirical evidence is needed (p. 207). Related to reasoning is Mill’s advice to consider other points of view (p. 214) in order to see my topic from different angles.

Lastly, I want to take to heart Mill’s advice about my prose to use “clear and simple language” (p. 217) that is a “readable prose” (p. 221).

# data[].attributes.body
Mills article gave great ideas on keeping track of ideas and information because you never know when it might be useful.  This is something I have never really done because I like to have fully fleshed out ideas, but this also helps me understand why I don't write anything important - because I don't keep track of the random thoughts or information I find.  I love the idea of Dr. Cole's digital file.  That is something I can (and should) easily start.

While this article had great ideas, I got bored reading it. The author's voice did not engage me or hold my attention for long. That might be due to the age of the article, but as an audience member, I was not drawn into the writing. The author does not seem to cite many sources, which would have strengthened this paper by including ideas of what other experts say.  He included some of his own work, which were large block quotes, which I find awkward to read and process. I like it better when the citing author breaks it down to main points.

I'm not sure if these ideas were new or significant at the time, although they are useful tips. I wish that connection had been made clearer. What about his idea is new? I also don't think the introduction was super clear, so the paper felt a bit rambling for me. The author does remind the reader of his main idea, but the points could have been more concise and clearly made.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this article because it opened my eyes to many things I hadn't thought of before. First, I am one of those people taught that you cite sources you use in your paper. I had never heard of citing someone out of debt or because they were one of the originals in the field. This was new to me and important to learn. I also really enjoyed the discussion about whether or not students should be cited. If a student contributes to a work or helps their teacher's research in some way, they should be cited, rather than given an anonymous name. That helps build a reputation for that student, especially if they want to enter the scholarly/research world.  Robillard gives several rules for citing others, all which taught me things to consider as I do my own papers.

The sources Robillard uses seem to mirror the philosophy in the paper. First, she uses authors that are considered experts in the field. Then she cites others who have contributed to her research. Finally, she cites some students who have published in the journal she discusses in her paper. The paragraphs seem to link well to one another and I do feel connected as an audience member. I am drawn into the paper and want to keep reading. Robillard does cover the points she stated in her introduction, although I felt her points weren't always clear on what she was arguing. I had a hard time telling if she was for or against citing students in the first part of her paper.  Her voice was relatable and accessible to the readers like me.

# data[].attributes.body
I love the idea of intertextuality and use the idea in my classroom, asking questions like, "How does the text we are currently studying relate to other texts we have read?"  I also love to talk about archetypes with my students and share that we can't write anything truly original because all writing relies on archetypes.  Bazerman's text reaffirmed many of my thoughts on intertextuality.

Bazerman points out we can't write original texts (1).  All writing is influenced by prior writing.  He also points out that as we analyze intertextuality, we will learn new ways to write, to identify research, and how to join conversations (1-2).  I enjoyed the levels of intertextuality, which gives me new ideas of how to teach intertextuality and how to use it to improve my own writing.  I also learned quite a bit from the techniques of intertextual representation because again it gave me ideas I hadn't considered before.  Bazerman points out the suggestions at the top of the two lists are the most easy to analyze, which helps scaffold using and teaching these skills (5).
The teaching ideas in the methodological section also have great ideas I can use with my own writing as I try to improve it and as I teach my students more about intertextuality.  I also appreciate the resources at the end, with ideas for further reading and various activities to use.  Bazerman states, "intertextuality is not just a matter of which other text you refer to, but how you use them, what you use them for, and ultimately how you position yourself as a writer to make your own statement" (9-10).  This is the idea I want to take with me as I finish this article.

Bazerman does not quote any authors in his paper.  He uses examples of student work, but no direct quotes. He also does not use a "Works Cited" page, although he does give a list for further reading. He does link his ideas well, but I do wonder if they are all his own original ideas or if he is building off the work of other authors. The conclusion is very brief, after a long introduction and I wanted a little more to it. Overall, it was fun analyzing his writing based on the questions for this week.

# data[].attributes.body
Writers need to consider when to submit just as much as they consider what and how to submit for publication. The when is as important as the what and how.

Gallagher & DeVoss used the analogy of a pipeline with three connected parts. The first part is for incubating ideas, the second for processing those ideas, and the last for producing the ideas (p. 152).

Their description of the idea section had me thinking about the scrap file in the Mills reading for this week.

The bulk of the work takes place in the second piece of the pipeline. In that second phase you are fleshing out the ideas, getting feedback, maybe presenting pitching those ideas. Ideas have become articles.

The third and final phase involves the query, receiving reviewer comments, and working through the actual publication process.

People tend to not be good at all three sections of the pipeline. Putting projects into a pipeline is for the purpose of helping them move on from ideas to product or not spend too much time presenting ideas and not moving on to the final publication phase. Also, a pipeline helps you have numerous projects in process at the same time, although the projects are in different phases, rather than just working on one project at a time from start to finish before starting on the idea phase of another project.

Gallagher and DeVoss point out that using a pipeline helps coordinate your writing with your career so that the timing (the when) works in your favor. They wrote,

"This advice is useful for at least three phases of a career: going on the academic job market, ensuring productivity in the first year of a tenure- track position, and creating a sustainable publication record for securing tenure" (p. 153). Their point was that it helps you time the publication of your writing to coincide with your entry into the job market or your process of achieving tenure.

Additionally, using a pipeline helps you regularly produce writing for publication, rather than having long gaps in between publication.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read McCorkle’s chapter for two reasons. The first is that my final project for this course is about MOOCs on Coursera and about 7 years ago I took a MOOC on Coursera that McCorkle co-created and taught. The second reason is because I’m currently in a casual writing group in which we used to talk about writing when we began meeting via zoom, but lately (the past year) our conversations haven't been about writing.

In this chapter, McCorkle uses the analogy of a heist movie and the disparate characters, with their respective skills, who comprise a team to pull off their heist. His point was that each team member has a skill or expertise that the others don't and, similarly, each member of a writing group has their own unique perspective. McCorkle said, "when you find yourself part of a writing group, recognize what each member brings to the table, including yourself" (p. 129).

Each person in the group will read your writing in a different way and all the views of the group members need to be listened to and altogether comprise complete feedback on your writing.

However, McCorkle suggests that you don't just give the group your writing and wait to see what they say. Part of receiving helpful feedback from people is asking questions of them about your writing so that you are playing to their strengths as members of your group.

# data[].attributes.body
The two authors of this article explain that although they work at different institutions, they have worked together for over three years on a variety of collaborative projects.  To demonstrate their collaborative nature, they write this article as a dialogue through a Google document.  Stedman explains that earn tenure, he has to show he is participating in his scholarly community.  Danforth explains that while she doesn't have that requirement, scholarship helps her be a better teacher.  Both point out that scholarship takes a lot of time and they both have busy schedules, so collaboration makes the most sense.

The authors point out that this works well because when one might be busy with grading or other teaching duties, the other one can be working. They switch back and forth regularly. They choose projects that fit into their professional lives. They also point out that editing is also a way of contributing. The authors state that opportunities for collaboration can come from many places. For example, you might meet someone at a conference who would be good to work with, so you approach that person and see if you can do a collaborative work on a mutual field of interest. Stedman states, "I guess our advice is to meet smart people and then collaborate or work with them" (133). The two authors also point out that because they work together so well, sometimes they write lines for each other and the selection ends on that thought.

# data[].attributes.body
Cools begins her article by telling her a story of how she presented a paper in progress to her husband, someone who has published frequently.  He went to give her feedback and her heart dropped.  Then her husband told her, "You need to separate yourself from your writing" (138).  Cools explain this is something that is hard to learn, but that she needed to learn it in order to accept feedback and grow from it.  She states that she took rejection of her writing as rejection of herself (138).  She points out that as she separated herself from her writing and looked at it with a more objective view, the feedback helped her write a better essay.

Cools explains that she always judged her writing in her head.  She said something that really resonated with me.  She states, "I seemed to have subscribed to the view that because I was a writing teacher, any writing that I showed anyone had to be flawless" (139).  I often feel that way too and this article helped me see that we all have room to grow.  Feedback is not a reflection of a person or their worth as a writer.  It's just feedback to help improve writing.

Cools explains that she requires her students to do peer feedback, even though many students feel awkward with this process. Cools further states, "I tell myself that if students can do it, then I too can be brave enough not only to solicit feedback but to receive criticism" (139). As a teacher, I require my students to get peer feedback, so it only makes sense that I need to do the same thing.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was interesting to me because as my project is now, I start it off using an example from what a student submitted in a MOOC, but I don’t cite that student. What I wonder about, though, is if you cite a student and, for some reason your writing gets read by a lot of people, couldn’t that affect the student later on? I remember a few years ago I read John McPhee’s Draft No. 4 in which he relayed a story about one of his undergraduate writing students. I remembered the story, and the student’s name, and later when taking a MOOC, I saw that the creator/founder of that MOOC platform (Ruzuku) had the same name. I sent him an email and asked “Are you the Abe Crystal that John McPhee mentioned in his book?” He said, “yes” but he didn’t seem thrilled about it.

So, I’m torn by the issue of using students by name in one’s writing. Do student writers want their teachers to write about what they did as students and share their names? On the other hand, it’s important to cite who you are quoting or referring to in your writing. I hadn’t considered it until reading Robillard’s article that “composition studies . . . has relied upon student writing as the subject of so much of its research” (p. 255). Additionally, teachers who write about their students tend to do so in a way that highlights what the teacher has accomplished in teaching the students (p. 257). Robillard says that composition teachers who write should acknowledge their indebtedness to their students (p. 258). Related to that is the idea of citation as “debt and ownership” (p. 261).

I have always considered citations as a way to substantiate what I’m saying, but never considered it as a way to bolster the reputation of someone else. I was surprised by Robillard’s example of the group of friends who purposely cite each other in their writing (p. 260). I don’t think I’ve ever cited someone who I knew personally.

Robillard also discusses how writing courses have generally been about the “how” of writing, rather than the “what” and suggests that the focus should not just be on writing as a verb, but writing as a noun (p. 255). That was something else I hadn’t considered either until reading Robillard’s piece.
The bottom line in Robillard’s piece is that “credit is due whenever we use the words or ideas of another writer. Simple as that” (p. 261).

In regard to one of the suggested writing prompts, I think that Robillard does continuously make gestures that remind readers of the main argument and focus. I think the section about teaching the "what" and "how" of writing went a little astray from the main point of citing, but that section was so short and Robillard then went back to discussing citing.

# data[].attributes.body
This article caused me to think about intertextuality in writing through the analogy of music. Songs are the result of differing ways composers/musicians arrange notes. Everyone uses the same notes, but just arranges them differently. However, the arrangements (or intertextuality) are such that music is grouped into genres of similar-sounding sounding music. Like music, what we create as writers is original, but the words (notes) we use are not. Musicians are influenced by the music they’ve heard. Writers are influenced by the texts they’ve read. Sometimes musicians and writers intentionally demonstrate who or what they borrowed from, but other times they might not realize where their borrowed words or phrases came from.

This week I read an article about Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom in which the author of the article (Stephen Heiner) wrote, “We would do well not to trust in princes, or their assistants the multinationals, who would have us build new Towers of Babel.” Heiner used two phrases similar to two phrases in the Bible (“trust in princes” and “Tower of Babel”) that were used in contexts similar to what he was referring to. I think he did so intentionally, but he didn’t cite where those phrases came from because his purpose was not to quote a source, but to use phrases that he thought readers would know enough about their source to give what he was saying a deeper meaning. I think that goes along with Bazerman’s definition of intertextuality: “the explicit and implicit relations that a text or utterance has to prior, contemporary and potential future texts” (p. 3). Heiner’s use of those two phrases tells readers more than what he explicitly wrote in his article. It tells readers something about Heiner and helps readers identify his ideas (p. 1).

As I write my project for this class, I’m now going to be paying attention to the phrases and words I use and think about where I might have picked those up or how they could be used to say something implicitly. Intertextuality, in that sense, can help writers be more efficient in their writing because they can use phrases that carry meaning without having to explain what those phrases mean.

Bazerman’s levels of intertextuality was interesting and something I hadn’t considered until reading his article. Bazerman’s section about techniques relates to Robillard’s article about citations. However, that makes me think that it might sometimes be difficult to know when to use a citation or not for a phrase. When it comes to copyright standards, if the phrase is well-known or -used, then you don’t need to cite it, such as the following: fly in the ointment or weak link. But, it’s not always easy to know which category a phrase might fall into. If someone is well-read in a particular subject, there will be phrases that they think are common enough to not cite, but maybe should have their source cited.

Bazerman’s article gave me a lot to consider, not only in the texts that I read, but also in what and how I write.

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciated Mill's technical way of breaking down how to identify the question at the center of one's project.

I found page 206 to be the most helpful on this front, where Mills encourages us to to isolate the question, and then, to seek an answer that helps solve further problems, and avoids being too simple.

When identifying the question, Mills encourages us to consider what we already know about the topic, and possibilities surrounding the direction we expect to go in. Then, Mills would have us widdle away false ideas and expectations surrounding our subject, and to then restate our original question in a way that takes the above into account.

Mills seems to be wanting writers to spend a little more time on precision of language when it comes to articulating what our question ought to be, and invites us to acknowledge the nature of this question may change as we go more deeply into the topic at hand. In the MFA in Creative Writing program, this idea is referred to as the "Aboutness" of the piece, at times. It emerges as you work. In creative writing, that process is a bit vague, but when it comes to more technical and academic writing, it seems that Mills is suggesting a more exacting or scientific approach - to dissect the question at hand like a frog and examine it's parts in a technical way, and alter the course ahead accordingly.

# data[].attributes.body
I love how creative intertextuality can be. Bazerman reinforced my experience of it in a way I appreciated it. He asserts that it intertextuality emerges from making observations and interpretations of a text, looking for moments or clues that reenforce these observations, and taking note of any patterns that emerge as such.

The exciting thing about this process is that you are having a conversation with the text, but are also seeing what conversation the text is having with itself. More fun can be had if you involve other related sources - information you know about the author, or about other works that were a contemporaries to the text you are examining.

Intertextuality teaches students the art of argument - that we should be able to pose an idea or argument, but then, back it up accordingly.

Bazerman breaks down how this process works, but in essence, it is entering a mode of exploring, like deep sea diving, and bringing what we find to the surface for others to also see and take note of. I found the examples he used to be strong ones, and I think that students starting out should be given many examples of intertextuality. If I were a teacher, I would have the class read a short story, and then give examples of essays written to examine the pieces intertextuality. Then, I would assign another short story, and have them attempt it on their own. I would repeat this whole process a few times in the semester. I had a Professor do something similar in my College Writing class, and it really helped me realize how to converse with a piece and observe in what way the piece was resonating with itself.

# data[].attributes.body
Robillard was a refreshing read. I feel like citations are often presented to students in a dull way, which is "cite this correctly so you avoid plagiarism". And for most students, this is enough motivation to cites their sources.

Robillard suggests, thought, that we can have motivations to cite that run deeper, which can include; establishing our own expertise, providing evidence for our claims, affirming our place in the larger conversation, establishing the school of thought we find ourselves in, and to help avoid some of the criticisms our piece may have experienced if we were not up to snuff with our citations. Citations can also be a political thing- you make your allegiances plain when you elevate someone's work and cite it well.

One additional point I appreciated from this paper, which I had not thought about before, was how if you cite someone in an anonymous way, you deny them an opportunity to defend, expand on, or clarify their thoughts. Unless doing so causes some harm, it is important to cite people in a precise way, because they have a relationship with the ideas that they put out into the world, and should continue to have agency over them.

# data[].attributes.body
I remember Prof. Cole once said in a class video that we can cover just one chapter of Gallagher if we find ourselves short for time. I am going to do just that this time around. March has really been a time of hosting lots of family, and also having to travel for some work commitments, so I appreciate this option.

Inou here discusses the importance to listening from feedback from the opposition, that is, from individuals who fundamentally disagree with the ideas and the arguments you are making. This not only helps one bolster their argument, it helps when it comes to the author exercising compassionate listening, and to approach the feedback given with a level of humbleness and openness. We are to see feedback from the opposition as a gift.

Inou asked an individual he respected for this oppositional feedback, and a person that he knew personally. This person was a Professor, and after he had received the requested feedback, Inou echoed back what he understood of the feedback, and then thanked the Professor. The act of repeating back what you understood of someone's feedback seems crucial as it allows you to confirm or deny your interpretation of their words.

There are many benifits but also challenges in this practice. If your circle of people is not wide enough, you may not know "the opposition" well enough to ask for their thoughts. Finding the opposition, in this case, and asking for input will be more like a shot in the dark, since you are not asking someone you know personally. You risk offending them, or having them write you off. I think what Inou suggests is best done when we know our opposition.

# data[].attributes.body
I very much agree with Mills in that your life and work are connected. For me, I relate everything back to teaching, and I found that true in this chapter as well. We are always talking to students about author’s craft and crafting their own pieces. I am 100% on board with Mills here. We craft. That’s what we do. It’s an art.

The project I am working on for this class is also connected to my own work as a teacher. Initially, I was thinking about doing some sort of literature review to learn more about competency-based learning. However, as I was reading the literature, I realized a couple of things. For one, there isn’t much out there when it comes to competency-based learning in high schools. Additionally, questions remain on how exactly to implement and assess on competency-based learning. I am on my second year of implementing this method in my own particular way. As I was reading, I did feel like I may have something to contribute. I have nearly two years’ worth of student data, so I decided that I would write a journal article instead. I’m going to start with reviewing the literature and identifying the gaps, explain my methodology, analyze the data I’ve collected, and then see what I can conclude based on what I’ve found. All of that to say, that my writing for this class is deeply connected to my own life. I agree with Mills’s observation that the most admirable thinkers use their work and their lives to enrich each other (195).

Furthermore, I really like what Mills said about your past affecting your present (196). This makes me think about how it seems like I see everything through the lens of teaching in England. It has had a profound effect on me, and I wish that I would have kept a journal, like Mills recommends, while I was there. When Mills said that a mature workman is able to both trust and be skeptical of their own experiences, this made me think about when I first started teaching in England (197). I very much had “the grass is greener on the other side” mentality. However, upon returning, the U.S. system was not exactly what I had seemed to put on a pedestal in my head. Some of what I thought was still true, but other things were not. It actually makes me want to go back and teach in England again because I can see if what I currently remember about teaching in England holds up.

Finally, I just want to conclude by saying that Mills is completely right about the importance of surrounding yourself with a circle of people who will listen and talk. I have the best co-workers. They have made me a better teacher, a better parent, and a better person. I am going to take Mills’s advice and start keeping a journal. I know for a fact that much of what I write will come from the people I work the closest with.

# data[].attributes.body
I really like the ideas in this piece. I very much agree with Robillard that we cite others out of feelings of debt and ownership. I feel like I’ve learned so much from others, and I really am appreciative of the knowledge they have shared. In addition, I absolutely love how she respects the contributions of students. I also really like how she did not correct the inconsistency when she went from citing the student’s first name to last name. It showed the evolution in her thinking.

Over the last eighteen years, my students have taught me more than I ever could have imagined. I am a better reader because of them. I am a better writer because of them. I am a better speaker because of them. They challenge me, and I get better. They model for me, and I get better. It makes me think of one of the students I taught in England. If she hasn’t already published something, she will. She is incredibly gifted, and she went on to study at Oxford. I would absolutely cite her by her last name because she deserves the utmost respect even if she is young. A person’s age or position should not define how we see them or diminish their contributions.

I often ask students if I can keep their work and use it as exemplars in future years. One piece of advice that I got from Robillard is to ask students if they want to have their real names on their work. Robillard said, “Students, like anyone else, are generally pleased to see that their work has had an impact on someone else’s thinking. They, like anyone else, like the idea of seeing their names in print” (264). I will remember that.

I found the lists of what citations do based on who is being cited to be very helpful and something I will refer back to. I also found the concept of thinking about writing as a noun instead of a verb to be helpful in my practice as both a teacher and a student.

# data[].attributes.body
“Almost every word and phrase we use we have heard or seen before. Our originality and craft as writers come from how we put those words together in new ways to fit our specific situation, needs, and purposes, but we always need to rely on the common stock of language we share with others” (1). The opening of the Bazerman piece made me think of my daughter. She’s at the age where she is using idioms that she’s picked up from television, books, and other people. The other day she realized that the lake near our house and the lake we saw at piano lessons was the same lake. She said in the most shocked tone, “That just blew my mind!” Then a few seconds later, she added, “like a volcano!” I keep wondering where she heard that from, but the point is that it really doesn’t matter exactly where (at least not in this case). She picks up language like we all do, and she uses it in her own ways. It reminds me of my friend’s five-year-old daughter who got mad at the peanut butter being difficult to spread on her piece of bread. The little girl yelled, “Come on! This is America, peanut butter!” It makes you wonder, what American value the peanut butter was not upholding? Kids are great. Language is great.

I enjoy the concept of intertextuality. I like thinking about how a text relates to the texts around it, which is one of the perks of being an English teacher: I get to do that a lot. The different levels of intertextuality that Bazerman identifies really helped me to understand, and I want to use those with my students. For example, when a news story quotes opposing views, they are portraying intertextual social drama (4). I also want to use Bazerman’s list of techniques of intertextual representation in the classroom (5). Bazerman concludes by saying, “Intertextuality is not just a matter of which other texts you refer to, but how you use them, what you use them for, and ultimately how you position yourself as a writer to them to make your own statement” (9-10). This is exactly what I am trying to do in the literature review portion of the article I will write for this class.

I realize this isn’t exactly the point of the piece, but the part where Bazerman was talking about middle schools stood out to me. One of the things I did not like initially about teaching in England was that students went straight from elementary school to high school. I very much thought there needed to be some sort of middle school because 11-year-olds were too young for high school. They looked like (they were) children). One staff member I worked with disagreed. She said the American model of middle schools doesn’t work, and there were studies to prove it. I dismissed her and never looked into it. However, it hit me hard when Bazerman wrote, “Yet both proponents of the middle school model and critics of the approach recognize that too many such schools have failed to find their academic way…So far, middle schools don’t have much to boast about when it comes to student achievement” (2). The more I thought about this statement, the more I realized there is truth in it. The middle school in our district does not have good results when it comes to student achievement. Two years ago, our high school decided to implement the middle school model in 9th and 10th grades. It has made no difference on student achievement. Admin thought it would fix the fail rates, and it did not. Bazerman quotes Schmidt in saying, “The middle school is the crux of the whole problem and really the point where we begin to lose it” (2). I sort of agree. When I see what my daughter is being asked to do in elementary school and what we are asking students to do in 11th and 12th grade English language arts, the academic rigor is high, and, on the whole, students rise and meet the expectations. From what I’ve heard, this is not true at our middle school. It raises some questions: Would middle school students perform better if they had the older students as models? Would the expectations be higher if the teachers had 7th grade classes and 12th grade classes, for example, on their schedules? Are middle schools worth the extra costs for districts?

Finally, I do have to comment on this line from Bazerman’s text: The study faulted the American curriculum for being ‘a middle wide and an inch deep.’” I actually thought that in the first interview I had when I was moving back to the United States. The coverage was insane. I am thankful that I am in a position where I have the freedom to adjust the curriculum. We look at fewer texts and go more in depth. I genuinely believe it makes a huge difference.

# data[].attributes.body
Since Rachelle already wrote the summary, I am going to share how the chapter connected to my own life.

The timing of this week’s reading was perfect. I have been involved in writing rubrics for the district for the last two and a half years. The rubrics at the high school level are very much my babies. Before we had our final rubric writing meeting, one of the district employees talked to me about this very thing: separating myself from the rubrics I’ve written. She wanted to make sure that I could take a k-12 approach and see the vision the school has. The next day I read this chapter, and two days after that, I successfully applied the ideas in our eight-hour rubric writing meeting.

When I was in high school and getting my undergraduate degree, I never read any feedback that teachers gave because I was too embarrassed to do so. That is the opposite of how I feel as a teacher. I want students to read and use the feedback, and it makes me mad at myself that I never did. I could’ve been so much better, and I am assuming that there were some nice compliments in there that I never read. As an adult, I definitely value feedback even when it can be difficult to hear. I like what Cools said here: “I tell myself that if students can do it, then I too can be brave enough not only solicit feedback but to receive criticism” (139).

# data[].attributes.body
I also decided to read “Embrace the Opposition” by Inoue because of the rubric revision meeting that I had coming up. I thought that the rubrics I wrote were going to face opposition, so I read this chapter very carefully and took it to heart.

Inoue begins by saying we must “seek feedback from readers who seem most opposed to your views or position in the draft, then practice compassionately listening to what they say, not merely to use the feedback, but to understand it as a gift” (140). I went into the meeting ready to listen to the k-4 teachers in particular. What I heard was that they felt like the high school rubrics also described what they wanted from their students. That sounds crazy, I know. However, the more I listened, the more I realized that what we ask students to do in language arts doesn’t really change. We want them to make inferences, support them with evidence, and explain their reasoning – whether that’s a kindergarten student inferring that a character is sad and providing evidence in the text to support why they think the character is sad or a high school student inferring what The Scarlet Letter seems to be saying about the concept of truth and supporting that with evidence from the text. The texts and prompts get more difficult, but what we want them to do in a lot of ways stays the same. We noticed that in pretty much all of language arts competencies, including Discussion and Creative Writing. Listening to them was a gift. I now have a greater understanding than I did before.

Furthermore, I like how Inoue looked at feedback from the Buddhist perspective in that “this is a small way the writer might practice suffering with the other, with the reader” (140). I have experienced this as a teacher when I conference with a student about their work, and I read their work aloud. I am not trying to make them feel bad, but sometimes it is helpful for them to see that the reader doesn’t understand what they are trying to say. The student wouldn’t have the same understanding if they just read my notes. I do think it’s important to try not to be judgmental in the feedback we give and to try to receive it without getting defensive.

I thought it was wise for Inoue to ask someone who she knew would resist to read her draft. He showed her how a reader like him would experience her book (143). This is really valuable. It’s hard to give your work to someone who you know is going to oppose it, but I think having a good relationship with the person, like Inoue had with Dr. Z, is important.