My Statement on Teaching Philosophy Statements

I love the idea of remediation. I absolutely love it.

In regards to the big picture of teaching philosophies, while difficult to pin down, I feel like there isn't much of a case against them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've also been writing them nonstop for the past 2 years and have found them to be very helpful in terms of being, as they put it in the article, "a fruitful moment for growth and change" (DeVoss, 25).

Beyond that, however, what was said about remediation is truly outstanding. I so strongly agree that we should encourage all pieces to be looked at as "living documents," where they continue to expand and take shape even after you believe you're done. That goes for our students and for us. One example of this is obviously our teaching philosophies, but that also is so crucial to crafting lesson plans, expanding on materials used in the classroom, and even our own personal writing. For example, I am reading in Blue Sky tonight and had no living documents to work with. I am reading something from my past, something too stuck in the moment I wrote it to revise. Revision and remediation should happen with every project if we want to build and support our craft.

There were so many little bits and quotes I could pull from this article, but the one in particular I want to address in regards to remediation is the following: "These are incredibly important questions we don't often enough allow students to address in shaping their own work" (DeVoss, 30).

When we stick to simply one form of output, we limit the types of thinking our students have to do in order to create a piece, as well as the thinking we need to do in order to teach it. Have you ever noticed yourself falling into a routine--whether it be daily or yearly--of responses you give your students to the questions they ask? That's when teaching becomes flat: when our responses feel rehearsed, their questions the same. As we expand our composition game, so to speak, we are then able to offer more for them to think about. And, this isn't to say that alphabetic writing is useless, but writing in one medium only covers so much ground. Imagine writing an alphabetic text, engaging in several forms of remediation including several different modes, then coming back to the original alphabetic text. Think of all of the dimension you could then add to your alphabetic writing after experiencing your text in multiple modes, or better yet, our students' alphabetic writing.

Because they should be able to ask questions about their work, and try to get as much out of it as they can. Aside from remediation being a helpful tool, it can also just be fun. It allows for writers to dig deeper in their writing; its like creative problem solving. You've got an essay? Try turning it into a recipe! Or maybe a song! Alright, what if it were a series of still life photographs? The words become the writer's, not just the reader's. Its a process that is yours. And, sure, as the article said, "each remidiation [is] a moment for both invention and frustration," but in the end, you're able to pull from so much more material than a flat text and connect with a much broader audience (DeVoss, 34).

I loved reading the phrase "technology as a strategy," because it emphasized that even though experimenting with technology can be fun and challenging like a giant puzzle, we use it with a purpose. Re-mediating things we're used to gives our writing more purpose, expands our thinking, and has us face questions we would not have asked otherwise.

#DeVoss

My Statement on Teaching Philosophy Statements

I love the idea of remediation. I absolutely love it.

In regards to the big picture of teaching philosophies, while difficult to pin down, I feel like there isn't much of a case against them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've also been writing them nonstop for the past 2 years and have found them to be very helpful in terms of being, as they put it in the article, "a fruitful moment for growth and change" (DeVoss, 25).

Beyond that, however, what was said about remediation is truly outstanding. I so strongly agree that we should encourage all pieces to be looked at as "living documents," where they continue to expand and take shape even after you believe you're done. That goes for our students and for us. One example of this is obviously our teaching philosophies, but that also is so crucial to crafting lesson plans, expanding on materials used in the classroom, and even our own personal writing. For example, I am reading in Blue Sky tonight and had no living documents to work with. I am reading something from my past, something too stuck in the moment I wrote it to revise. Revision and remediation should happen with every project if we want to build and support our craft.

There were so many little bits and quotes I could pull from this article, but the one in particular I want to address in regards to remediation is the following: "These are incredibly important questions we don't often enough allow students to address in shaping their own work" (DeVoss, 30).

When we stick to simply one form of output, we limit the types of thinking our students have to do in order to create a piece, as well as the thinking we need to do in order to teach it. Have you ever noticed yourself falling into a routine--whether it be daily or yearly--of responses you give your students to the questions they ask? That's when teaching becomes flat: when our responses feel rehearsed, their questions the same. As we expand our composition game, so to speak, we are then able to offer more for them to think about. And, this isn't to say that alphabetic writing is useless, but writing in one medium only covers so much ground. Imagine writing an alphabetic text, engaging in several forms of remediation including several different modes, then coming back to the original alphabetic text. Think of all of the dimension you could then add to your alphabetic writing after experiencing your text in multiple modes, or better yet, our students' alphabetic writing.

Because they should be able to ask questions about their work, and try to get as much out of it as they can. Aside from remediation being a helpful tool, it can also just be fun. It allows for writers to dig deeper in their writing; its like creative problem solving. You've got an essay? Try turning it into a recipe! Or maybe a song! Alright, what if it were a series of still life photographs? The words become the writer's, not just the reader's. Its a process that is yours. And, sure, as the article said, "each remidiation [is] a moment for both invention and frustration," but in the end, you're able to pull from so much more material than a flat text and connect with a much broader audience (DeVoss, 34).

I loved reading the phrase "technology as a strategy," because it emphasized that even though experimenting with technology can be fun and challenging like a giant puzzle, we use it with a purpose. Re-mediating things we're used to gives our writing more purpose, expands our thinking, and has us face questions we would not have asked otherwise.

#DeVoss