TEAM AMERICA 2012---
“London calling” summers in Weymouth, Portsmouth UK
The state of USA Olympic sailing--
Special Education
Watching the Olympics has been somewhat painful as a US sailor. With just two exceptions, the US Sailing Team has been a woeful disappointment. Despite a loud, expensive, and powerful push by Team Chairman Dean Brenner to focus on finding, selecting and training the best prospects for Olympic medals, the US team's total take in Qingdao will be exactly what it was four years ago: One silver medal and one gold – and only a last-beat hail mary of a shift for Olympic gold-medal favorite Anna Tunnicliffe secured her that gold – at the penultimate mark she looked like the owner of nothing but bronze.
Zach Railey's silver-medal Finn performance was truly outstanding and unexpected, and he's certainly the US's real standout story of the sailing games, while Anna's gold was really a stroke of luck for a girl who'd been kicking ass on the international radial circuit for the past year. The rest of the US field was a comedy of errors: Andrew Campbell's DSQ and subsequent BFD showed his total inability to withstand the pressure cooker of the Olympics, and the USA's other good chances evaporated with a sigh – Tornado stars Charlie Ogeltree and John Lovell blew it before the racing even started with their ugly gamble on the cool-sounding but useless chupacabra sail, and medal favorite Sally Barkow and her Yngling crew choked away their chances in the final race.
The rest of the US sailors were more or less invisible in China, and it may be time for US Sailing to do some serious soul searching. Their Board of Directors signed Brenner to a 4 year extension – through Weymouth – before these Games began. According to the US Sailing website, “Under Dean's leadership, US Olympic Sailing has enjoyed significant improvements in private fundraising and corporate support, which has contributed to increased support for US athletes and improved performance on the water for the US Sailing Team.” Perhaps they're victims of their own hype – but it's hard to see where, exactly, that improved performance went this month.
These Olympians are incredible sailors, and the ones we've spoken to are great people. They are completely dedicated to their sport – but with the resources, size, and number of sailors in the USA, there's just no logical reason for their dismal performance. Perhaps pomme Bob Fisher had it right when he said, “Maybe US SAILING should take a leaf out of the Royal Yachting Association’s book and develop an Olympic squad.”
We spoke to a top Olympic coach today, and he's not sure whether an RYA-style squad is the answer. “In some of these countries, you sign up to do an Olympic campaign and it becomes your life,” he said. “You may need to join the military as part of your training, you might need to sacrifice ten years to be part of a professional-level team, and the loss of your freedom and independence is the price you pay for the improved training and support you get as part of a national system. When US sailors do a campaign, it's their campaign, their challenge, and usually their money. Without major changes to the system, we just won't be competitive with the RYA-style teams – and I'm not sure that we're ready to accept the sacrifice that it will take to get there.”
Will Brenner find a way to spin Qingdao as some kind of success for US Sailing? Probably. Will he admit that his credentials as a Shakespearean scholar, public speaking coach, and failed Olympic trials sailor may not have prepared him for the role of head of the US Sailing Team, or even that he's learned some hard lessons and needs to rethink the way they do things? Refreshing as it would be, we're not holding our breath.
08/20/2008 sailinganarchy.com
What is need NOW--
Zach Railey’s achievement in winning a silver medal in the Finn class after three years of full-time training is impressive, and sets a new bar for American Finn sailors. If Zach can do it, there are several other American Finn sailors who can also do it to with proper training and supportive development. That training and development is expensive, as Railey’s campaign spent about $120,000 a year just to win the Olympic Trials.
USA sailors are expected to fund their own campaigns without help from the USA Olympic Sailing Committee.
So, in order to push Zach and develop a core of Olympic sailors, TEAM AMERICA 2012 will—
• Help promising USA Finn sailors attend the Finn Worlds, Europeans, USA Nationals and North Americans, and training weeks at Weymouth, site of the London 2012 Games.
• Conduct clinics throughout North America to enhance the skills of the Finn fleet in order to develop the level of Finn sailing—a rising tide of sailing skills will benefit those at all levels of the fleet.
• Lobby the decision makers in the USA Olympic Sailing Committee and ISAF to promote the interests of the Finn.
What YOU can do—
You can support TEAM AMERICA 2012 in these ways—
Become a sustaining member and receive our quarterly newsletter, available only by mail. $100/year
Become a Bronze medal member by contributing $500.
(This pays entry fees for two sailors at the Finn World Championships and European Championship)
Become a Silver medal member by contributing $1,000.
(This pays airfare for a sailor to attend the Finn World Championship or European Championship).
Become a Gold medal member by contributing $5,000.
(This funds an American sailors’ expenses to attend a Finn World Championship or European Championship).
Contact TEAMAMERICA2012@yahoo.com to become part of the effort to bring American sailing back!
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
traveller poems
Year's first day beside the sea
New years day beside the East Sea
It is cold at dawn, placed on the steep hills overlooking
The still grey Korean surf
As the sun rises from the water skybound
A cool breeze stems across those cliffs
And daybreak lightens the horizon
Standing before the Sokkharam Budda,
Gazing in the new century first day.
Pause in the Mojave
Driving Barstow to Needles a poem begins, the traveler
Sits at the riverbank, long reeds pierce the sky, resting in water
Desert sun light bored into hard red rock.
A long journey behind, a long journey ahead
But now a pause to rest
Collect the fragments of a scattered mind.
New years day beside the East Sea
It is cold at dawn, placed on the steep hills overlooking
The still grey Korean surf
As the sun rises from the water skybound
A cool breeze stems across those cliffs
And daybreak lightens the horizon
Standing before the Sokkharam Budda,
Gazing in the new century first day.
Pause in the Mojave
Driving Barstow to Needles a poem begins, the traveler
Sits at the riverbank, long reeds pierce the sky, resting in water
Desert sun light bored into hard red rock.
A long journey behind, a long journey ahead
But now a pause to rest
Collect the fragments of a scattered mind.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Generation 1.5 Meets Second Language Writing and American College Culture
ERIC Identifier: ED482491
Publication Date: 2003-10-00
Author: Harklau, Linda
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics
Generation 1.5 Students and College Writing. ERIC Digest.
An increasing number of U.S. high school graduates enter college while still in the process of learning English. Referred to as generation 1.5 students because they share characteristics of both first- and second-generation immigrants (Rumbaut & Ima, 1988), they do not fit into any of the traditional categories of nonnative English speakers enrolled in college writing courses, nor have they been the focus of much research on students learning to write in English as a second language (Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999). Familiar with U.S. culture and schooling, generation 1.5 students have different learning needs from other English language learners, such as immigrants with limited English proficiency and international students who travel to the United States for the express purpose of earning an American college degree. This digest discusses some of the special needs of generation 1.5 students in the area of writing instruction and explores issues faced by English as a second language (ESL) and college writing programs in providing these students with appropriate writing instruction at the college level.
GENERATION 1.5. STUDENTS
Generation 1.5 students are U.S.-educated English language learners. There is great diversity among them in terms of their prior educational experience, native and English language proficiency, language dominance, and academic literacy. Some of these students immigrated to the United States while they were in elementary school; others arrived during high school. Still others were born in this country but grew up speaking a language other than English at home. They may see themselves as bilingual, but English may be the only language in which they have academic preparation or in which they can read and write. At the same time, these students may not feel that they have a full command of English, having grown up speaking another language at home or in their community. Equipped with social skills in English, generation 1.5 students often appear in conversation to be native English speakers. However, they are usually less skilled in the academic language associated with school achievement, especially in the area of writing. Academic writing requires familiarity with complex linguistic structures and rhetorical styles that are not typically used in everyday social interactions.
One of the most common traits among generation 1.5 students is limited or no literacy in the first language. According to Thonus (2003, p.18), many of these students have lost or are in the process of losing their home languages without having learned their writing systems or academic registers. Unlike international students, generation 1.5 students lack a basis of comparison in fully developed oral, written, or both systems of a first language.
PLACEMENT IN COLLEGE WRITING COURSES
Placing generation 1.5 students in appropriate college writing courses presents a challenge. Many students who were mainstreamed in high school may find themselves placed in an ESL composition course in college because their writing exhibits characteristics of second language writers. Unfortunately, most instruction in ESL composition courses is designed either for international students who have learned English formally, are literate in their native language, and are accomplished students in their home countries; or for ESL students who have had limited exposure to English and to U.S. culture and education. Neither of these options is a good fit for generation 1.5 students. Nor do regular freshman composition or remedial courses serve these students well. In mainstream writing courses, students are likely to encounter teachers who lack training in how to work with students from non-English-language backgrounds and who are unaware of their specific needs and how best to help them develop their writing skills.
Valdes (1992) argues that it is crucial for institutions of higher education to devise criteria to distinguish between students who are not fluent in English and therefore need ESL instruction and students who may have problems with academic English but do not need ESL classes. She refers to these two nonnative groups as "incipient bilinguals" and "functional bilinguals." Incipient bilinguals are still in the process of learning English. Their writing contains many grammatical errors, and they can benefit from ESL classes in which they will receive specialized instruction. In contrast, functional bilinguals are no longer considered English language learners, but they may have learned nonstandard forms of English that persist in their writing. Such "fossilized" forms include, for example, past tense verbs or past participles with missing -ed endings or present tense verbs lacking agreement with third person singular subjects (e.g., missing -s endings) Valdes (1992) suggests that functional bilingual students should be placed in mainstream classes and taught to identify the fossilized features of their written English and given guidance in and opportunities for editing their writing.
INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES
While some generation 1.5 students come to collegeprepared for the academic writing required in a collegecontext, many do not. Difficulties in writing seem to stem from a lack of priorinstruction in the kinds of writing needed for academic domains and a lack ofattention to the problems that interfere with students' ability to show whatthey know in writing. To work effectively with generation 1.5 students, collegewriting faculty should do the following.
"Be aware of students' prior academic literacy experiences."
Understanding the prior educational background of generation 1.5 students is essential to understanding what they need from writing instruction. Many of these students were placed in low-ability classes in U.S. high schools and have had little experience with extensive or academic writing. Research has shown that high school students in low-track classes are socialized into literacy practices that differ from those used in higher tracks (Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999). In low-track writing classes, instruction focuses almost exclusively on substitution drills, dictation, short answer, or writing from models.
Students have little experience with revising their writing or writing from sources. This is in stark contrast to the experience of college-track students, who are taught argumentative and analytical writing and who have experience writing research papers. As a result, although generation 1.5 students may have the cognitive skills needed for college-level courses, their writing skills may not reflect this ability and may prevent them from keeping up with their English-speaking peers.
"Promote academic literacy."
Reid (1992) believes that to be prepared for college writing, generation 1.5 students must be exposed to authentic writing tasks in the content areas so they become aware of the schemata, purposes, and rhetorical conventions needed for academic writing. This exposure should begin before students enter college. Hartman and Tarone (1999) argue that generation 1.5 students should have exposure to a wider range of writing in high school in order to promote their academic literacy skills.
"Help students develop critical literacy."
Blanton (1999) argues that literacy acquisition is not the same thing as language acquisition. She believes that critical literacy makes a crucial difference in academic success because it involves more than learning to read and write. It demands that students be able to engage in questioning, discussing, evaluating, and writing about what they have read. Students who have no experience talking about reading or writing do not know how to do this.
"Recognize diverse needs."
Ferris (1999) notes that because of differences in generation 1.5 students' background and experiences, their writing instruction needs to be different from the instruction offered to international and ESL students. For example, in addition to providing clear and explicit feedback on students' writing, teachers may need to teach generation 1.5 students how to make use of feedback and how to revise and edit their work. In addition, many generation 1.5 students cannot identify parts of speech, although this is assumed to be prior knowledge in most grammar and editing texts. So teachers may need to supplement the texts with focused instruction on formal grammatical features and editing strategies. Thonus (2003) recommends that writing instruction for generation 1.5 students affirm their cultural and linguistic heritage, emphasize learning how to write rather than what to write, and balance grammar correction with instruction in rhetorical styles.
CONCLUSION
It takes many years for literacy in a second language to develop fully. To be successful in college, generation 1.5 students may need to unlearn previous practices and learn new ways of approaching writing. To do this, they need access to instruction that recognizes that they are different from other English language learners. This instruction needs to make room for their diverse backgrounds and strengths and prepare them for life outside the classroom.
REFERENCES
Blanton, L. L. (1999). Classroom instruction and language minority students: On teaching to 'smarter' readers and writers. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal. (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 119-42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). One size does not fit all: Response and revision issues for
immigrant student writers. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), "Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL" (pp. 143-157). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). "Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL." Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hartman, B., & Tarone, E. (1999). Preparation for college writing: Teachers talk about writing instruction for Southeast Asian American students in secondary school. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal. (1999), "Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL" (pp. 99-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reid, J. (1992). Helping students write for an academic audience. In P. Richard-Amato & M. Snow (Eds.), "The multicultural classroom" (pp. 210-21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rumbaut, R. G., & Ima, K. (1988). "The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth. A comparative study." Final report to the Office of Resettlement. San Diego: San Diego State University. [ERIC Document Service Reproduction Service No. ED 299 372]
Thonus, T. (2003). Serving generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center. "TESOL Journal, 12," 17-24.
Valdes, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing. "Written
Communication, 9," 85-136.
Publication Date: 2003-10-00
Author: Harklau, Linda
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics
Generation 1.5 Students and College Writing. ERIC Digest.
An increasing number of U.S. high school graduates enter college while still in the process of learning English. Referred to as generation 1.5 students because they share characteristics of both first- and second-generation immigrants (Rumbaut & Ima, 1988), they do not fit into any of the traditional categories of nonnative English speakers enrolled in college writing courses, nor have they been the focus of much research on students learning to write in English as a second language (Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999). Familiar with U.S. culture and schooling, generation 1.5 students have different learning needs from other English language learners, such as immigrants with limited English proficiency and international students who travel to the United States for the express purpose of earning an American college degree. This digest discusses some of the special needs of generation 1.5 students in the area of writing instruction and explores issues faced by English as a second language (ESL) and college writing programs in providing these students with appropriate writing instruction at the college level.
GENERATION 1.5. STUDENTS
Generation 1.5 students are U.S.-educated English language learners. There is great diversity among them in terms of their prior educational experience, native and English language proficiency, language dominance, and academic literacy. Some of these students immigrated to the United States while they were in elementary school; others arrived during high school. Still others were born in this country but grew up speaking a language other than English at home. They may see themselves as bilingual, but English may be the only language in which they have academic preparation or in which they can read and write. At the same time, these students may not feel that they have a full command of English, having grown up speaking another language at home or in their community. Equipped with social skills in English, generation 1.5 students often appear in conversation to be native English speakers. However, they are usually less skilled in the academic language associated with school achievement, especially in the area of writing. Academic writing requires familiarity with complex linguistic structures and rhetorical styles that are not typically used in everyday social interactions.
One of the most common traits among generation 1.5 students is limited or no literacy in the first language. According to Thonus (2003, p.18), many of these students have lost or are in the process of losing their home languages without having learned their writing systems or academic registers. Unlike international students, generation 1.5 students lack a basis of comparison in fully developed oral, written, or both systems of a first language.
PLACEMENT IN COLLEGE WRITING COURSES
Placing generation 1.5 students in appropriate college writing courses presents a challenge. Many students who were mainstreamed in high school may find themselves placed in an ESL composition course in college because their writing exhibits characteristics of second language writers. Unfortunately, most instruction in ESL composition courses is designed either for international students who have learned English formally, are literate in their native language, and are accomplished students in their home countries; or for ESL students who have had limited exposure to English and to U.S. culture and education. Neither of these options is a good fit for generation 1.5 students. Nor do regular freshman composition or remedial courses serve these students well. In mainstream writing courses, students are likely to encounter teachers who lack training in how to work with students from non-English-language backgrounds and who are unaware of their specific needs and how best to help them develop their writing skills.
Valdes (1992) argues that it is crucial for institutions of higher education to devise criteria to distinguish between students who are not fluent in English and therefore need ESL instruction and students who may have problems with academic English but do not need ESL classes. She refers to these two nonnative groups as "incipient bilinguals" and "functional bilinguals." Incipient bilinguals are still in the process of learning English. Their writing contains many grammatical errors, and they can benefit from ESL classes in which they will receive specialized instruction. In contrast, functional bilinguals are no longer considered English language learners, but they may have learned nonstandard forms of English that persist in their writing. Such "fossilized" forms include, for example, past tense verbs or past participles with missing -ed endings or present tense verbs lacking agreement with third person singular subjects (e.g., missing -s endings) Valdes (1992) suggests that functional bilingual students should be placed in mainstream classes and taught to identify the fossilized features of their written English and given guidance in and opportunities for editing their writing.
INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES
While some generation 1.5 students come to collegeprepared for the academic writing required in a collegecontext, many do not. Difficulties in writing seem to stem from a lack of priorinstruction in the kinds of writing needed for academic domains and a lack ofattention to the problems that interfere with students' ability to show whatthey know in writing. To work effectively with generation 1.5 students, collegewriting faculty should do the following.
"Be aware of students' prior academic literacy experiences."
Understanding the prior educational background of generation 1.5 students is essential to understanding what they need from writing instruction. Many of these students were placed in low-ability classes in U.S. high schools and have had little experience with extensive or academic writing. Research has shown that high school students in low-track classes are socialized into literacy practices that differ from those used in higher tracks (Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999). In low-track writing classes, instruction focuses almost exclusively on substitution drills, dictation, short answer, or writing from models.
Students have little experience with revising their writing or writing from sources. This is in stark contrast to the experience of college-track students, who are taught argumentative and analytical writing and who have experience writing research papers. As a result, although generation 1.5 students may have the cognitive skills needed for college-level courses, their writing skills may not reflect this ability and may prevent them from keeping up with their English-speaking peers.
"Promote academic literacy."
Reid (1992) believes that to be prepared for college writing, generation 1.5 students must be exposed to authentic writing tasks in the content areas so they become aware of the schemata, purposes, and rhetorical conventions needed for academic writing. This exposure should begin before students enter college. Hartman and Tarone (1999) argue that generation 1.5 students should have exposure to a wider range of writing in high school in order to promote their academic literacy skills.
"Help students develop critical literacy."
Blanton (1999) argues that literacy acquisition is not the same thing as language acquisition. She believes that critical literacy makes a crucial difference in academic success because it involves more than learning to read and write. It demands that students be able to engage in questioning, discussing, evaluating, and writing about what they have read. Students who have no experience talking about reading or writing do not know how to do this.
"Recognize diverse needs."
Ferris (1999) notes that because of differences in generation 1.5 students' background and experiences, their writing instruction needs to be different from the instruction offered to international and ESL students. For example, in addition to providing clear and explicit feedback on students' writing, teachers may need to teach generation 1.5 students how to make use of feedback and how to revise and edit their work. In addition, many generation 1.5 students cannot identify parts of speech, although this is assumed to be prior knowledge in most grammar and editing texts. So teachers may need to supplement the texts with focused instruction on formal grammatical features and editing strategies. Thonus (2003) recommends that writing instruction for generation 1.5 students affirm their cultural and linguistic heritage, emphasize learning how to write rather than what to write, and balance grammar correction with instruction in rhetorical styles.
CONCLUSION
It takes many years for literacy in a second language to develop fully. To be successful in college, generation 1.5 students may need to unlearn previous practices and learn new ways of approaching writing. To do this, they need access to instruction that recognizes that they are different from other English language learners. This instruction needs to make room for their diverse backgrounds and strengths and prepare them for life outside the classroom.
REFERENCES
Blanton, L. L. (1999). Classroom instruction and language minority students: On teaching to 'smarter' readers and writers. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal. (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 119-42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). One size does not fit all: Response and revision issues for
immigrant student writers. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), "Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL" (pp. 143-157). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). "Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL." Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hartman, B., & Tarone, E. (1999). Preparation for college writing: Teachers talk about writing instruction for Southeast Asian American students in secondary school. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal. (1999), "Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL" (pp. 99-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reid, J. (1992). Helping students write for an academic audience. In P. Richard-Amato & M. Snow (Eds.), "The multicultural classroom" (pp. 210-21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rumbaut, R. G., & Ima, K. (1988). "The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth. A comparative study." Final report to the Office of Resettlement. San Diego: San Diego State University. [ERIC Document Service Reproduction Service No. ED 299 372]
Thonus, T. (2003). Serving generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center. "TESOL Journal, 12," 17-24.
Valdes, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing. "Written
Communication, 9," 85-136.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Second language writing & the culture of American education
Exploring second language writing and the culture of American education
Here are names common to my role sheets in English 1A: Rodriquez, Nguyen, Darawish, Do, Huang, Puzar, Devera, Torres, Hernandez, and so on. Each is a student who has experienced an American high school, graduated, and has entered community college for all the right reasons—to be successful, to gain an education, to make something of themselves. And each is plagued by a level of reading comprehension and written expression that is below college level. Each has language that is a mixture of a first language that represents their heritage and the as-yet-charted “interlanguage”—what they learn as a result of immersion in the culture of American education.
Students in English 1A typically are not readers, not writers, and view English class for the most part as a hoop to jump through on the way to their real purpose—attaining a degree in business, computers, nursing, social work, real estate, some profession that popular lore and parental pressure has deemed the quick way to a middle class lifestyle. Reading and writing are not skills to master in order to do well in college work, in their view. Rather, it is a quantity of units that go on the transcript.
The fact that each has graduated from high school, has a number of relatives who are successful in their fields, and are able to succeed in their other classes without the sorts of literacy skills we English teachers would like them to have further reinforces the idea that English class is an ordeal to be endured, the less pain the better. But we English teachers think we know better. We tell our students that writing well is important in the workplace, that the skills learned in English 1A will help students succeed in their other classes, that there’s a writing skills test they must pass in their junior year in order to take classes in their majors. And most play along with those ideas, knowing in the back of their minds that writing well is an asset, one which they want to master if only somebody will take the time to actually teach them how to master it. And because those who can write well will do better than those for whom writing produces a mishmash, it’s still worthwhile to teach English composition.
But when the plurality of community college students are not native speakers of English, and are actually functioning in their lives in two or more languages, then how do they learn the higher academic and cognitive skills taught in English composition? To try to answer this question, I enrolled in the Teaching English As A Second Language Program at a university near to my home.
Here are names common to my role sheets in English 1A: Rodriquez, Nguyen, Darawish, Do, Huang, Puzar, Devera, Torres, Hernandez, and so on. Each is a student who has experienced an American high school, graduated, and has entered community college for all the right reasons—to be successful, to gain an education, to make something of themselves. And each is plagued by a level of reading comprehension and written expression that is below college level. Each has language that is a mixture of a first language that represents their heritage and the as-yet-charted “interlanguage”—what they learn as a result of immersion in the culture of American education.
Students in English 1A typically are not readers, not writers, and view English class for the most part as a hoop to jump through on the way to their real purpose—attaining a degree in business, computers, nursing, social work, real estate, some profession that popular lore and parental pressure has deemed the quick way to a middle class lifestyle. Reading and writing are not skills to master in order to do well in college work, in their view. Rather, it is a quantity of units that go on the transcript.
The fact that each has graduated from high school, has a number of relatives who are successful in their fields, and are able to succeed in their other classes without the sorts of literacy skills we English teachers would like them to have further reinforces the idea that English class is an ordeal to be endured, the less pain the better. But we English teachers think we know better. We tell our students that writing well is important in the workplace, that the skills learned in English 1A will help students succeed in their other classes, that there’s a writing skills test they must pass in their junior year in order to take classes in their majors. And most play along with those ideas, knowing in the back of their minds that writing well is an asset, one which they want to master if only somebody will take the time to actually teach them how to master it. And because those who can write well will do better than those for whom writing produces a mishmash, it’s still worthwhile to teach English composition.
But when the plurality of community college students are not native speakers of English, and are actually functioning in their lives in two or more languages, then how do they learn the higher academic and cognitive skills taught in English composition? To try to answer this question, I enrolled in the Teaching English As A Second Language Program at a university near to my home.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Award winning journalism
This is an article team-written during my freelance journalism career--
http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1984/1984-story22.htm
http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1984/1984-story22.htm
Speed City Finding Its Legs Again in San Jose
The Jaguar Men Sunday won the game and the James Clark Classic tournament championship hosted by Cosumnes River College in Sacramento with a dominating win over Feather River, a team they only beat with a gift basket in the last seconds a week ago.
The win gives San Jose city a 7-3 record, which they take into this weekend's San Jose City College Classic Tournament in the Jaguar Den.
Feather River's cold shooting in the first half and San Jose's motion offense allowed the Jags to compile a 20-point lead at halftime.
B.J. Lassiter hit three treys and two field goals in the first half to take 13 points into the locker room, and led the Jags to lead 17-9 with 10 minutes left, 27-14 with 5 minutes left, and 34-14 at the end of the first half.
In the second half, City led by between 16-20 points until garbage time arrived in the game's final minutes when Feather River's Garhett Parent, a 6-6 freshman, found a hot hand and scored three consecutive baskets, one a 3-pointer.
SJCC's Neel Narayan, a freshman point guard, was named by the coaches as the tournament's most valuable player. He scored 12 in the final game's win, and had 9 assists against Napa Valley and 7 assists against Alameda in the first two games of the tournament.
The "Fijian Flyer", whose Indian family immigrated from Fiji to Silicon Valley, is finding a home sparking Coach Percy Carr's Speed City offense.
City's Isaiah James, freshman forward, and Chris Randel, sophomore forward, were named to the All-Tournament team. James' leaping prowess and Randel's emerging deft footwork are increasingly snagging the defensive rebounds that launch the Jaguar fast-break scoring machine.
The tournament host, Cosumnes River College, finished third with a win over Alameda. CRC is coached by James Giacomazzi, who played at San Jose City College, received a basketball scholarship to UC Riverside where he was All-Conference his senior year.
He was then an assistant coach at San Jose City College for five years while earning a masters in Human Performance/Sports Management at San Jose State before getting the head coach position at CRC.
The tournament win and their overall 7-3 record help boost San Jose City to move up two places to 10th place in the coaches Northern California poll.
report by Charles Heimler (charlesheimler.blogspot.com)
The win gives San Jose city a 7-3 record, which they take into this weekend's San Jose City College Classic Tournament in the Jaguar Den.
Feather River's cold shooting in the first half and San Jose's motion offense allowed the Jags to compile a 20-point lead at halftime.
B.J. Lassiter hit three treys and two field goals in the first half to take 13 points into the locker room, and led the Jags to lead 17-9 with 10 minutes left, 27-14 with 5 minutes left, and 34-14 at the end of the first half.
In the second half, City led by between 16-20 points until garbage time arrived in the game's final minutes when Feather River's Garhett Parent, a 6-6 freshman, found a hot hand and scored three consecutive baskets, one a 3-pointer.
SJCC's Neel Narayan, a freshman point guard, was named by the coaches as the tournament's most valuable player. He scored 12 in the final game's win, and had 9 assists against Napa Valley and 7 assists against Alameda in the first two games of the tournament.
The "Fijian Flyer", whose Indian family immigrated from Fiji to Silicon Valley, is finding a home sparking Coach Percy Carr's Speed City offense.
City's Isaiah James, freshman forward, and Chris Randel, sophomore forward, were named to the All-Tournament team. James' leaping prowess and Randel's emerging deft footwork are increasingly snagging the defensive rebounds that launch the Jaguar fast-break scoring machine.
The tournament host, Cosumnes River College, finished third with a win over Alameda. CRC is coached by James Giacomazzi, who played at San Jose City College, received a basketball scholarship to UC Riverside where he was All-Conference his senior year.
He was then an assistant coach at San Jose City College for five years while earning a masters in Human Performance/Sports Management at San Jose State before getting the head coach position at CRC.
The tournament win and their overall 7-3 record help boost San Jose City to move up two places to 10th place in the coaches Northern California poll.
report by Charles Heimler (charlesheimler.blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)