Looking back at 2009: Mark's Top 10 Events

First of all, Happy New Year to everyone and thanks for all the help and support you have given me and my family in 2009. Without you, we wouldn't have been able to have the fun, peaceful and meaningful year that we had. Thank you!

I want to separate the Top 10 into Top 5s for professional and personal/family:

Top 5 Teaching/Learning Events:

• Asia TEFL presentation and first time visiting Bangkok in August
• Consulting for high school English curriculum reform project in Akita in Sept
• JACET presentation and steering committee duties in Sapporo in Sept
• The Reading/Writing Workshop Method study group & offline conference at ICU in Sept
• Publishing new LRB article on video-based Academic Speaking assessment in Dec.

Top 5 Personal/Family Events

• Celebrating 10 wonderful years of marriage with Megumi in Jan.
• Guam family trip in July, visiting my sister's family in Denver in March
  
• Marathon personal best 4hrs 26 m in March, half marathon personal best 1hr 45m in Nov.
• Soccer madness in our house, Michael is addicted
  
• Not any particular event, but the fact that Megumi, Michael, Mei and I all got through the year safely and in good health. In particular, I am very happy to see Michael and Mei growing and learning so many things. Michael's letter to me in December (below) was particularly touching.

The best things in life are not necessarily the big events, but the day to day joy of waking up together, eating, playing learning, and saying good night with hugs and kisses. We are very blessed that we can do that and that, all by itself, made 2009 a beautiful year!

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Travails of a 'young war criminal' | The Japan Times Online

Travails of a 'young war criminal' | The Japan Times Online

In this article, a very important point is made about how leaders of powerful countries (Bush and Blair in this case) will never be prosecuted for violating international laws in attacking an independent country such as Iraq for no reason (no WMDs) other than the fact that they didn't like the leader. Is Kim next? Chavez? China?

Who will be held accountable for causing deaths of over 100,000 in Iraq in attacks based on false premises?

Although I support the idea of removing evil dictators and replacing them with democratic governments, we can't just invade and kill.

As we begin to study to Visions of the Future unit this term, this forces us to rethink how international laws and agreements should be redesigned so that they are enforced fairly regardless of who breaks them. When should international arms intervention into human rights violations be justified and what should be the procedure for such decisions? Can one group of countries (the "good" guys) move in and take out the bad guys? Is that what we want?

ARW Winter Notes for 12/18 - Discussion on fears of cloning

Some of the questions we discussed in class were:

1. Will we be able to copy a soul? It is clear to most of us that a clone is only a copy of DNA, not a copy of the soul or personality (Though Clonaid and the Raelians, who claimed in 2002 that they cloned a human girl and many other clones since, would disagree--they think cloning is the path to immortality--scary cult). However, in the future, with a more advanced understanding of the brain, will it become possible to copy someone's "brain" including memories, knowledge, personality and so on? It is difficult to imagine how this could be done, but since the brain consists of electronic signals and chemicals, it may be a matter of time. On Wikipedia, there is a page that explains such Mind Uploading as the ultimate development of neuroinfomatics. If you like classics, see also the Ship of Theseus.
   
   
2. Should we be allowed to clone pets? I think this possibility will come about quite soon because the attractiveness of this option for pet owners and breeders is quite obvious. However we should consider the implications of beginning to choose exactly what kind of animal we are going to get. Although we already do that to some extent by buying pets in stores or breeding them with "good genes," cloning means we will get "exactly" what we expect and that means we may lose our ability to accept weaker or less than perfect pets (and eventually people)?
   

Reactions to Silver p.6-12

Summary

III. Cloning Enters Public Culture - Where do our perceptions of clones come from? Where do your perceptions come from?: First, Silver introduces some of the main "public culture" books and movies in the 1970s and 80s that gave people various images of clones. Then he explains the Hall-Stillman experiment in 1993, which was the first scientific report related to the concept of "cloning humans." However, in Silver's view, the negative reactions (like those of the Vatican and the EU) to the Hall-Stillman experiment were irrational because they were only separating "early human embryo cells" and letting them develop independently, which is basically how twins are made. Silver thinks the negative reaction occurred mainly because the word "clone" and "human" were used in the same media story.

IV. From Sheep to People - Is it possible? Will scientists do it?: Silver argues that nuclear transfer cloning technology for humans will probably work because it has worked for many types of animals. However, more experiments on many animals will be needed before scientists can say human cloning is safe, with no birth defects and no health problems after birth. Theoretically, Silver thinks the number of birth defects in cloned children might be less than natural reproduction. Finally, Silver suggests that finding doctors who are willing to make human clones will probably be no problem.

V. What are the two main Cloning Misperceptions that lead to fear?: Silver thinks people are afraid of cloning for two main reasons. First, people don't have a clear sense of what a "clone" is. Many people mistakenly think that cloning copies not only the DNA, but also the person's experiences, memories and personality. This is obviously impossible. Cloning can only copy biological DNA ("life in the general sense") not a person's life experiences and soul. Second, people have the misperception that a clone will be "imperfect" compared to the original and have no soul or empathy. However, as long as the technology is safe, the clone will be a unique individual with their own life, just like a twin has a unique life.

Critical Reactions / Discussion Questions (with My Opinions)

1. On p.6, Silver introduces movies that talk about cloning "leaders" such as Hitler. If you could clone a famous person from the past, who would you clone? Personally, I cannot see the point of cloning a leader because the clone would never be the same as the leader, right? But is it possible that some groups will try this? That would be tragic.
   
   
2. p.7 "The embryos were discarded" after the Hall-Stillman experiment in 1993 and that led to outrage from various sources such as the Vatican. What do you think about the word "discarded"? Do you think it should say "embryos were murdered"? Should we see embryos as human or not? That is a key point in bioethics.
   
   
3. Also on p.7, Silver calls the separation of embryos into twins, "a mimicry of nature". Is that true? Is it just copying nature? I think that is an oversimplification.
   
   
4. p.8, "Humans are nothing more than glorified monkeys" Agree? Personally, I think we have to think we are special and not just monkeys in some way to maintain our self-respect. However, I also feel that accepting we are just one part of nature may be a good stance.
   
   
5. Should scientists stay away from cloning research, or should they do it? Should scientific curiosity have limitations? If so, what kind?
   
   
6. Is a clone really just a "later born identical twin - nothing more, nothing less"? Is this description accurate?
   
   
   Brave New World movie link
   

ARW Winter Class Notes - 12/16 W

Following an introduction of recent news of how China is officially allowing human cloning research for stem cell therapies to proceed, we confirmed the process of how human cloning would work, and then watched a video where Dr. Silver argued that the only concern should be technical safety.

After group discussion and reports, I felt some of the most interesting questions discussed by students were:

1. What are the possible benefits of human cloning? (Being able to have a genetically connected child, harvesting organs?, avoiding genetic diseases by cloning healthy persons etc.)
   
2. Why do people fear clones? (Misperceptions that they are "different" somehow etc.)
   
3. What are the main problems or issues that may come about as a result of allowing human cloning for reproductive or organ therapy purposes? (identity, cloning for business etc.
   
4. If you were unable to have a child, and had a choice between cloning, adoption, surrogacy, and remaining childless, which would you take?

Personally, regarding No.4, I think I would choose adoption. However, if some people feel that cloning is the best choice, it should be available to them.

Intro to Bioethics of Human Cloning, Silver 106

We'll be reading a chapter from Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family by Dr. Silver of Princeton University. See his bio sketch and website here.


First, here is a diagram of what human cloning through "nuclear transplantation" would entail.



Also, here's a page with a 5 min. video about the ethical issues of cloning humans.

Here's a 6 min. video of Silver talking about his views of the possibility of cloning and the legitimacy of experimenting with embryos (cells are not life). The original source of the video is not clear. Discovery Channel?



Here's Silver in a debate at Boston University regarding Human Cloning.



Summary of Silver p.1-6
Silver starts by telling the story of Dolly the Sheep and how the announcement of her cloning in 1997 shocked the world. The general public and many types of experts opposed the notion of human cloning and funding for cloning research was withdrawn from Ian Wilmut. Silver predicts that human cloning will become possible in the future, but the question is whether it will be safe or not. Then he goes on to explain that cloning single-cell organisms and vegetables is easy, but cloning animals is more difficult because adult cells are already differentiated into skin, bones, heart, brain and other organs. However, the technique of nuclear transplantation, which was used with Dolly allows biologists to remove the nucleus of an adult cell and transplant it into an egg. (See the diagram above) This was first successful with frog eggs in the 1960s, but was considered impossible with mammals until Dolly.

Critical Reactions / Discussion Questions (4 in total):

1. He writes on page 3 that "the demand for cloning from individuals and couples is sure to be stronger than ICSI (In vitro fertilization)" but I wonder why he thinks so. Is it because cloned children will be able to avoid genetic abnormalities such as Down's Syndrome?
   
   
2. On p.5, he reports that "WE blamed mother nature herself" for the difficulty of cloning adult DNA. I wonder how widespread that belief or assumption was. Did scientists really feel that something superstitious like mother nature was interfering?
   
   
3. My main discussion question, naturally, is "Should cloning be allowed if it is safe in the future?" My personal answer to this, at this point, is that we should allow it as a choice for infertile couples, respecting their autonomy. Frankly, it is probably unstoppable because doctors will provide it once the technology exists, so it may be better to allow it and regulate it. I don't see much harm compared to natural reproduction. Clones are just latter day twins, aren't they? Most counterarguments sound like fear of the unknown rather than any definitely predictable detriment or rights violation.
   
   
4. Another discussion question I hope we will discuss is whether a cloned human, if born, should be treated differently than a naturally reproduced human. I strongly believe that the cloned person should be treated exactly the same.

What do you think?

What is Success? Video by John Wooden

One of my presentation class students blogged on this speech by legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden. His definition of success is worth remembering:

"Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to become the best that you are capable of becoming."



One of his favorite poems on teaching:
"No written word, no spoken plea, can teach our youth what they should be. Nor all the books on all the shelves -- it's what the teachers are themselves." (Source not given)

ARW Winter Class Notes - 12/14 M

Students did P&Ds of their essay topics for about 15 min. each in groups of 4, presenting their essay's topic, research question, thesis, and supporting arguments for about 5 minutes and then leading a discussion to receive questions and comments from classmates.

Is this type of discussion useful to students in developing their essays?

Pros:

1. It should be useful to talk about their opinions and see whether classmates find them persuasive.
2. As we talk about our ideas, they usually become clearer to us.

Cons:

1. If students have not done much research yet, or are unable to explain their topic well, it may be difficult for classmates to help them or give reactions.
2. Should this only be done in tutorials or outside class among friends? Is the peer discussion valuable to students?

What do you think? I hope my students (current or past) will let me know!

Bioethics Issue: Psychiatric Drugs

New York Times Online:

Poor Children Likelier to Get Antipsychotics

These research results were very disturbing for me. Doctors need to stop prescribing antipsychotic drugs when they are not needed, and Medicaid (the medical support system for poor families) needs to provide for inexpensive counseling and therapy for families that cannot affort them.

What's the situation in Japan? Are Japanese doctors prescribing antipsychotic drugs to children and teenagers?

ARW Winter - 12/9 Class Discussion Notes

On Wed, students brought in their various reactions and discussion questions regarding the Shannon article about bioethical theories and terms. During the discussion and reporting time, some of the interesting questions that I heard were:

1. If you had terminal cancer, would you try to fight and cure it, or would you enjoy life as much as possible? (This class was split on this)
   
2. If you had a terminal disease, would you want the doctor to tell you or not? (Most people seemed to want to know)
   
3. What's the dividing line between autonomy and paternalism? (The Japanese government may be too paternalistic when it comes to some issues such as sexuality--the majority is deciding for the minority. More choice should be allowed.
   
4. What ethical theory does Shannon seem to support the most? (He has a Catholic background, so he may have a deontological bias, but it is not clear)
   
5. What ethical theory do most Japanese people feel comfortable with? (Intuitionalism?)

I enjoyed hearing reports of interesting questions and points at the end. But I also wanted to hear more critical reactions to Shannon. Perhaps I should divide the reporting for critical reactions and free discussion questions? Maybe I will consider that for the Silver discussions next week.

Getting students to contribute to the Net

This is still a half-baked thought, but I want students in all of my classes to participate in the construction of knowledge on the Internet.

For example, why not have a project where students create or edit a Wikipedia article?

Why not ask students to write book reviews on Amazon, or movie reviews on IMDB, the internet movie database?

Why not have students pose their questions on Yahoo Answers and share what they get?

Tagging for social bookmarking like Delicious contributes to sorting knowledge for others.

Creating something in WikiHow is another way.

When students see videos on TED.com, why should be writing comments and rating the presenters.

Presentations they make, or essays they write should be shared as knowledge on YouTube or other sites as a contribution to research.

If they have such goals in mind, they may be motivated to make their ideas clearer and their research more complete.

I need to do some research on what kind of classroom projects for high schools or colleges have reached out of the classroom in that way. In January, one of my classes will be doing a major group project, so I hope I can tie something in.

More on this again some time.

AEP Blog #1 - Analysis of TED Video

---------------------------
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html

My analysis of this presentation video is:

Impression:
De Gray's main point is that human aging can be delayed, and he predicts that 1000 year lifespans are very much possible if funding is provided for research. Is his talk persuasive? I would like to hear a professional critique by biological experts, but he seems to show that he is already extending the lifespan of mice steadily. Whether it is true or not, the talk is very valuable for us to think about the possible social consequences of living longer and longer. He argues that the idea that longer life is bad for society does not make sense. Aging causes death just like diseases, and it seems logical to find a way to reduce it. He argues that more funding should be given to anti-aging research.

He talks very, very fast, but I enjoyed listening to him to the end and felt the talk was informative, somewhat persuasive, and definitely thought-provoking. Also, cool beard. Makes an impact.

Strengths
His presentation strengths are

• He includes a lot of information in a very short time. Very informative.
• He talks with no notes and almost without looking at his slides. He knows his message and the ideas come out very clearly at an amazing speed.
  
• Organized and logical. He gives his outline at the beginning and follows it to the end. The flow of logic is easy to understand.
• His PowerPoint slides are not fancy, but they are effective because they match what he is saying. The key words match what he wants to emphasize. Very efficient.
  

Weaknesses

• He really should talk slower. His persuasiveness would go up with fewer words and more pausing. Does he care whether the whole audience understands and keeps up? Fortunately, TED has video, so people can go back and listen if they have trouble following.
  
• His body movements at the beginning seemed distracting.
• More definitions of terms and more explanation of diagrams would have been helpful for me as a non-expert.
  

Notes upon observing a class at another college

I just finished observing a class taught by a friend of a friend at a national university in Tokyo. Thanks John!

The 90 min. class was a required English communication class for 2nd year engineering majors.

It was a very organized and well-planned lesson based on a textbook the American instructor himself had written. Almost all students were shy but engaged in all activities throughout and seemed comfortable with the teacher and the format of the class.

Just to type up my handwritten notes, this is how it went:

8:45am
Good morning! Students do a self-checked vocabulary quiz/practice sheet. It doubles as a form of taking attendance. There are different quizzes for different students. It is self-paced as in when you "pass" one, you go to the next. That is reflected in the grade in some way.

8:55
Students start using the textbook with the teacher giving directions in front, reviewing phrases from the previous week. Review methods include repeating after the teacher, shadowing, and working in pairs to find mistakes in the sentences about the lesson. Then after a yoga stretch (good for sleepy students--why not do it earlier?), all students have to stand, and the teacher starts to read some "mistaken" sentences about the previous lesson. When students hear a mistake such as a wrong word, they raise their hand and say "not __, but __" and they get to sit down.

9:05
All students are sitting down and they try to say the complete, correct sentences from the previous lesson (a six sentence listening narrative about crime and punishment) based on incomplete cues. Then they change the sentences to third person (since the original narrative was first person.) Finally, the teacher holds up 6 pictures from the narrative and students try their best (some with difficulty) to say the sentence for that picture when called on. They didn't do the "re-tell the whole story" - not sure why not.

9:15
New lesson on refugees - do vocabulary matching at the start, teacher asks for answers, students have no problem, brainstorm what the new photos mean, try to guess in pairs, no reporting to the whole class.

9:25
Students listen to the teacher read six sentences about the pictures and answer T/F questions and then transcribe them on the next attempt, with pair work to confirm, and then reporting their answers to the whole class.

9:45
In preparation for a reading section, teacher explains vocabulary list and reads answers to a matching exercise. Then students take turns reading line by line. Students can read, but not clearly or with emphasis. Need some help there? Also, no discussion about the text?

9:55
Write a blurb in the back of the textbook about "Who you appreciate and why?" in relation to the point that refugees appreciate when someone extends a helping hand (not explained, my guess). Not sure what students wrote - no example given either.

10:00
Free talk time. What recent news have you seen? What topics do you want to talk about? Totally free - the pair I sat with discussed TV watching - What do you like to watch? etc.

10:10 Country profile. The teacher gives a talk about Bolivia based on a blurb in the textbook.
10:13 Go to an earlier page in the text and talk about causes of war. Not sure why - just something to fill the last two minutes.

10:15 See you next week. Do your Independent Learning Journal! Student grades are adjusted in some way (complex to me) related to their journal of independent learning. Since it is a journal, why not make it a solid part of the grade?

Some general ideas on the class:

1. At the beginning of class, I wondered if more energy might be raised by allowing students to ask each other how their week was. Vocabulary quizzes are good for review, but not energy raising. If feasible, perhaps a spoken activity for review?
   
2. During the "news talk" "free talk" time toward the end, which was about 10 minutes, I found that the students were the most lively and were enjoying the freedom to express their ideas. But I was puzzled that the discussion was not related to what they had learned that day, so I wonder if more might be done with student discussions about the topics that are in the textbook. For example, if students are studying crime and punishment or refugees, why not structure an activity so that students are discussing their personal views on the issue (Should Japan accept more refugees?) or generating their own discussion questions?
3. Also, although homework for independent study was assigned, I wondered if the class might be more effective and lively if a certain degree of preparation toward the class is required such as reading/listening to the text to finish some preliminary activities in advance. Of course some students may not do them, but if students had to keep a journal on a course management system such as Moodle, accountability could be kept.
4. Also, it sounded like only one class would be used for student project presentations (they write a six sentence narrative and tell it to the class), but I wonder if a few more weeks could be used for presentations, possibly in a group format.
5. The class was designed in a very helpful way to help students improve their comprehension of content, but a little more emphasis and use of class time on expression, including a chance to say ideas in groups or to the whole class and get feedback from the instructor on aspects such as pronunciation or articulation or phrasing might help students overcome their fear of speaking.

Just some ideas on what seemed to be a very effective class and curriculum!

Mark

Reactions to Anderson's "Assessing Writers"

This is the new book I'm reading with my research group on how to introduce the Reading Workshop and Writing Workshop method of instruction in college English classes and other levels of L1 and L2 education in Japan. We just finished reading How's It Going? and next is Chp.1 of our new book Assessing Writers. Unless I get lazy, I try to write all of my reactions in Japanese just like the other members who are all Japanese instructors and professors.

Chp. 7 "Conferring" & Chp. 8 "Linking Assessment to Instruction" Notes:

大切な点・勉強になった点
ーーーーーーー

• Chp.7はAndersonのHow's It Going?の著書に書かれたConferring・Tutoringのシステムが凝縮されており良い復習。学生と１対１で話し合う時がもっとも良くWriterとしての学生を理解し、力を評価し、的確に指導できるチャンス。そのとき学生を人間として尊重し、どんなWritingの問題に直面しているのか良く聞き、どんなことを教えるか対話の中で決定し、それに絞って指導し、その場で学生の理解を確認し、一度やってみてもらい、Follow　Upする。
  Andersonも書いたように、このようにやるべきことは分かっていても難しい。
  
  
• 最終章のChp.8はDesigning Units of Studyが主題で、学生全員に対して行うMini-Lessonをどう計画するかが主な内容。非常に具体的に書いていて参考になる。一つ大切なのはInstructionを入れすぎず、学生たちが授業の中で作家として自由に書き・話し合う時間を確保できるようにすること。
  
  １）Deciding what lines of growth to focus on, p.２１１のチャートはすごい。Writing Assessment項目のチャートに全員の学生の名前を入れ、誰が何を今上達目標にしているかを記入。これを基にどんなMini-Lessonがより多くの学生にとってためになるかを考える。大学でもこれができるようになれないだろうか。可能だろうか？
  
  ２）Initiative、Writing Well, Processに関する様々なMini-Lesson Unitの提案が参考になる。P.202.どれも「本物」のライターを育てるのに有効な技。Academic Writingを教える中でも「Writing with Detail」　「Writing for Social Action」 「Collaborating with Other Writers」などもっと組み込みたい項目が多くなった。
  
  
• Afterword：自分のクラスのライターたちが未来の有名作家、政治家、経済学者、演出家の卵だと思って責任をもってWritingを教えよう、とAndersonは提唱している。とてもインパクトのある考え方だ。これをいつも忘れずにいたい。私のICUのクラスの学生の全員が将来英語で様々なものを書き、世界を変える可能性をもっているのだ、と思って毎回の授業やTutorialｓに望みたい。
  

Writing教育の大先輩、Anderson氏に感謝！

考えたこと・やってみたいこと・疑問

• →やってみたいのはConference後に学生がEメールでConferenceの内容を要約すること。もしくはWritingのProcessを記述するNoteやBlogに学生が記入し、それをお互いに確認できるようにすること。
• →学生の強み・弱み・上達目標を記入するFormを作りたい。Web上で学生と共に記入していき、共有した情報によって焦点を絞った上達をクラス全員に提供していきたい。ノートも良いが、WebでGoogle Spreadsheetsを使えば全員の情報が一箇所に集約できるかも知れない。良いツールがあれば知りたい。要検索。
• →Afterword　ｐ.２２８にある大切な言葉をOfficeに貼りたい。”Imagine your student roster has Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, John Lennon, Stephen Hawking, Robert Frost (or Ryoma Sakamoto, Yukio Hatoyama, Kuwata Keisuke...)”　You would do "the best assessment work of your career to ensure that what you taught them was exactly what they needed as they moved on their paths to greatness." "Even though I don't know my students' futures, I feel an awesome responsibility to them." "We are instrumental in creating our students' future's as writers." などいい言葉がたくさんありますが、私が最も好きなのは：
  
  「Dream of Your Students' Futures as Writers」です。これをスローガンにします。
  

Chp. 6 Notes: Assessing Students' Writing Processes

p. 143 Don't use good/bad labels for writers. All students are somewhere on the path to becoming lifelong writers. My job is to find where they are on that path and "nudge them forward." I like this way of looking at writing instruction!

p. 148 nice chart "What I am learning about this student as a writer?" "What do I need to teach this student?" I can't seem to do this for my current college writing classes. Why not? Nice example on p.151 of how he used it with Aurora.

p.157 "Like expert chess players, who through experience come to recognize...board configurations and know instantly what their next move should be, literacy teachers become able to quickly to spot the resemblances between students and know intuitively where to take students as writers." Just need to work on that step by step.



Chp. ５ Notes: Assessing Students' Writing Processes
summary:
Anderson starts by noting that all effective lifelong writers need to develop their own individual writing process preferences. An effective writing process is defined as the "tools and strategies he uses when he's rehearsing (preparing topics/research/ideas), drafting/revising, and editing that help him write well time and time again." Most of the strategies that Anderson mentions are classic or previously mentioned in his book--all good stuff: free writing or brainstorming or reading past entries in a writers notebook to find or develop a topic, refer to several examples of mentor texts to get ideas for organizing, do research to get ideas for details to include, draft and revise at the same time, ask a peer for help in making ideas/organization/voice/details clearer, and edit by reading with a voice or asking a partner for help or using computer checkers.

p.114-117 have good charts showing how knowledge of good writing will lead to good questions to ask during the process of preparing/drafting/revising, and which will lead to certain recommended writing strategies. For example, for the point "A good writer communicates meaning," one question is "Is what I'm saying coming through in this draft? Is it changing as I write?" and strategies to help at that stage are to Re-read the whole piece or ask a partner and ask "What do you think I am saying?" Showing students how we as teachers use processes in writing is invaluable too.

The most valuable part of the chapter is the discussion of how to get to know students writing processes. Observing how they write (in class), reading their writer's notebooks and drafts and edited drafts to see what they do, and discussing their processes with them in conferences are the best way.

☆学んだこと・やってみたい事 / Take-Aways

• I want to do more discussions about students' writing processes in conferences, asking questions such as how did you (or who will you) go about revising this?
• I want to take more note of writing processes as seen in student's edited drafts -- how they mark up their drafts after getting comments from peers and instructor. How can this be do with our current system of online documents? I am guessing students copy their draft file and then start revising on the computer--that makes it hard to see what was deleted or expanded. Perhaps just include a reflection question on how the draft was improved to the final. Emphasize the need for awareness of the process.
  
• I want to show students more examples of what it means to revise. Currently I usually don't write essays along the same assignment guidelines and schedule as my students, but that would be very effective.
  
• One thing I noticed in my classes this term was that peer reviewers were giving a lot of "editing" advice at the revision stage when commenting on drafts of classmates. I need to make the recommended process clearer -- Don't start polishing until the content is more finalized. Help each other revise on a essay-wide scale.
  

Chp. ４ Notes:　Assessing How Well Students Write
私にはPainfulなチャプターでした。まだ完全には消化できていません。

痛かった理由は読み始めた時にはI know what good writing is - I teach this every week...と思い込んでいた自分が次第に壊れていったからです。

とても価値ある痛みです。

Writingのクラスを普段から教えているInstructorとして恥ずかしいことに、ジャンルを超えて根本的に「上手に書くこととはどういうことか？」と詰めて考えたり人と語った経験は殆ど自分にありません。Master's ProgramのクラスでSecond Language Writingというのを受けたこともあるのですが、そこでそのような考察をした記憶もありません。

What does it mean to write well? Andersonがｐ１００のTeacher Actionで課題として出しているようにConstruct your own list of traits of good writingという事を一度じっくりやらなければいけないなと思いました。ReaderとしてもWriterとしても、そのような観点で文章を見つめた経験が非常に少ないので、はっきり言って何が「Good Writing」なのか自分の中でまとまっていません。

Andersonの６つの項目はすべて根本的な力だと思いました。Communicate Meaning, Use Genre Knowledge, Structure the Writing, Write with Detail, Include a Voice, Use Conventions--一つ一つ例を使って丁寧に説明されていてとても参考になりました。

いまでもAcademic WritingのChecklistみたいなものを学生に渡して「こうするともっとOrganized and Persuasiveだよ」と教えていますが、もっと根本的に書くことへのアプローチを考え直したいです。

Voiceは特に興味深い項目です。Academic Essayの指導の中で学生のVoiceを殺すような教え方をしている先生は とても多いと思います。Don't do this, Don't do thatみたいな指示が多いGenreです。I, you, weを使わない方がいい、The thesis statement must be at the end of the introductionなどなど。しかし、その指導の中でInspiringなModel TextやModel Writerが使われることは稀で、それはやはりInspiringな内容を書いているEssayには大抵豊かに作者自身の個人的なVoiceが入っているからだと思います。自分も"Objective"とVoiceのBalanceをもっと上手に学生に教えたいと思いました。



Chp. 3 Notes: "Assessing Students as Initiators of Writing"

興味深かった点
ーーーーーーー

• p.54 "We need to discuss with students, both as a class and individually, the audiences with whom they can share their writing." 一番最近考えていることなので先に並べました。どんな「読者」と作品を共有できるか生徒と話し合う重要性。インターネット上には多くの読者がいるし、学内外にも機会はいろいろあるはず。教室内だけでしか共有しないことを早く卒業したい！（が思うように計画がまとまらない）
  
  
• p. 27 "Students want to write" p.28 "I have to write. But I love having written" (quoting Don Graves (1993, originally by D. Parker?) 　同感です！書くの辛いですが、書き終えて他の人から共感や反応を得た時の達成感は気持ちいいものです。
  
  
• p.28 "The true test of whether Writing Workshop (or any writing class like ARW) has made a difference is not whether all of our students become professional (English) writers, but whether writing (in English) becomes a tool they use for responding to the world--to comfort, to convince, to pay tribute, to commemorate, to celebrate, and to speak out." (My parentheses)　この目標はICUにおいてもっと意識しても良いのではないでしょうか。全員が英語で学術論文を書くようになる訳ではない。様々なジャンルの書き方を教え、Initiators of Writingになるようにするほうが良い気がする。もちろん、そうするとICUでの学びに必用なResearch Essayの力がそれだけ伸びないことになるが、最適なバランスは？
  
  
• p.30 "25 Purposes for writing (or speaking): Nice chart - To celebrate an important person or event, To persuade, To bear witness to an event, To show how fascinating a subject is, To let someone know how to do sth., To help create a better society, To disagree with a position, To make someone laugh, To learn something about yourself, To be understood by others, To get someone to vote for you, To teach a moral or a lesson, To complain, To recommend an action or solution, To tell what happened, To share a passion with others, To explore an idea, To imagine how your/our life could be or what it would be like to be somebody else, To make plans, To share how you feel about someone or something, To make money or solicit donations, To remember, To heal, To leave something behind you.　これらの内、ICUが書いている文章はいくつあるだろうか？主な種類は青い４つぐらい。もっとあってよさそうだ。ジャンルを自由に選ぶことができれば学生は興味や情熱を感じるものに関して自分で「目的」選んで書く経験を積むことができる。Persuasive Opinionに加え、Memoir/Personal Narrative、Short Story, Poetryがあっても良さそうな気がする。
  
  
• p. 33 A writing teacher should be a COACH, not a judge. The goal is to support, not to rank.
• p. 34-37 How to assess students as initiators of writing:
  1) Are they getting started smoothly,
  2) are they able to set their own purpose and audience for writing,
  3) are they developing good habits for developing their writing,
  4) are they actively asking for help from teacher and peers,
  5) are they actively seeking audiences to share their writing with,
  6) are they writing outside of the required class time/tasks?
  7) can they talk about why they are writing it, for who, and how they will write it
  「自分から作品を書き出す力 The ability to initiate writing」を評価するためには生徒を上記の観点から見ている必用がある。Writers with initiativeを伸ばすためには観察した上で苦労しているライターをサポートし啓発する必要がある。p.50の表　-困っている生徒をどうサポートするか詳細に書いてある。Nice ideas！
• p. 49～５４ - それ以前に、「自分で題材やジャンルを自由に選べる」Workshop的カリキュラムを作る必要がある。テストに振り回されすぎない。
  

考えたこと・やってみたいこと・疑問
ーーーーーーーーーーーー

• Initiators of Writingとしての力を明確に目標にしているところが新鮮。とても大切な力なのにAssessmentの項目になることが殆どない。それは教員が学生に「このジャンルをこの課題で書くように」と言い渡している限りは伸ばすことはできない。
  
  「Research-Based Argumentative Essay」とジャンルを決めてテクニックをマスターすることは決して悪いことではないが、それ以外のジャンルを勉強する必要もあるし、自分で自由に選ぶ経験も必要。しかし、時間が限られていると一つの優先的なジャンルに絞って極める方がいいのでは？というのがICUのカリキュラムの前提。
  
  今と違うやり方に学生がどう反応しどうライターとして成長するか見てみたい！

Chp. 2 Notes: "Getting Started, Developing an Assessment Lens"

興味深かった点
ーーーーーーー

• "Good writing teachers, have a vision of the kind of writers they hope their students will become someday...High quality assessment starts with a vision of success. Our vision is a lens through which we can look at student writers." どんな作家・書き手になって欲しいか、教員のビジョンが評価の始まり。
• Anderson's Vision: Help each student become a "lifelong writer" who initiates writing (knows that various genres of writing can DO things in the world), writes well (communicate meaning with details, structure writing, give the words a voice etc.), and has a process of writing that works for her. 生涯書き続けるライターは自分の力で「書き出す」ことができる。従来の作文指導に比べ、自分でジャンルも題も決めるワークショップ・メソッドの最大の強み。良い文章の特徴を理解し、自分にあった書き方・仕上げ方を見つけることも大切。
• In terms of the process, "each writer uses a process slightly different from others." Student writers have to discover their own process.　アイデアの出し方、ドラフトの作り方、チェックの仕方、それぞれ書くプロセスは違う。様々な方法を提示し、自分のプロセスを見つけるように試行錯誤してもらう。
• Develop your own vision, and gather and record information by observing what students are doing (see in class), thinking (ask in conferences), and writing (read in their writing pieces, also read in their reflections). ビジョンを発展させるためには教員自信がライターとしての自分を見つめなおし、他のライターや教員のビジョンから学び続けなければいけない。そしてそのビジョンへ学生をどう伸ばすか、観察を通して考え、レッスンやコンファレンス実行する。

考えたこと・やってみたいこと・疑問
ーーーーーーーーーーーー

• 自分のＶｉｓｉｏｎは確立されているのか？ある程度は評価項目みたいなものを使っているが、それは「Ｇｏｏｄ　Ａｃａｄｅｍｉｃ　Ｅｓｓａｙ」に特化したもので、「Ｂｅｔｔｅｒ　Ｌｉｆｅｌｏｎｇ　Ｗｒｉｔｅｒ」の教育にまだつながっていない部分がある。学生と「Ｂｅｔｔｅｒ　Ｌｉｆｅｌｏｎｇ　Ｗｒｉｔｅｒ」に関する話し合いから始め、考え直したいと思う。特に「Has kｎｏｗｌｅｄｇｅ　ｏｆ　ｖａｒｉｏｕｓ　ｇｅｎｒｅｓ」の部分はＩＣＵではやっていないのでどうにか組み込みたい。Ｒｅｓｅａｒｃｈ Ｅｓｓａｙだけではなく、他のジャンルも含めて自分で何を書きたいのか考え、書き出し、仕上げるライターになって欲しい。英語で書くことの意味を様々な角度から感じて欲しい。と思いつつ、限られた時間で一つのジャンルに強くなってもらうことにも価値があるのでそのバランスを考えたい。
  
• 学生が自分なりの書くプロセスを確立できるサポートをもっとしたい。Ｗｈａｔ’ｓ　ｙｏｕｒ　ｐｒｏｃｅｓｓ　ｏｆ　ｂｒａｉｎｓｔｏｒｍｉｎｇ，　ｔａｋｉｎｇ　ｎｏｔｅｓ，　ｄｒａｆｔｉｎｇ，　ｅｄｉｔｉｎｇなどの話し合いに価値がある気がする。Ｍａｒｋ’ｓ　ｐｒｏｃｅｓｓを示し、他のやり方も示し、いろいろ試してもらい、その中で有効なものをつかみ取って欲しい。
  
• ＥｓｓａｙやＰｏｒｔｆｏｌｉｏの最後のＳｅｌｆ－ＡｓｓｅｓｓｍｅｎｔやＲｅｆｌｅｃｔｉｏｎは今後も書かせていきたい。「ライターとしての自分」を発見してもらうために不可欠。ただ、締め切りに向けては学生は振り返りを書く余裕がないので、ＰｉｅｃｅのＤｅａｄｌｉｎｅを設定して、それが提出されてからＲｅｆｌｅｃｔｉｏｎのＤｅａｄｌｉｎｅを設定したいと思う。
  
• 疑問・みなさんへの質問：またメーリング・リストで書きたいと思います。

---------------------
Chp. 1 Notes: "Why Assess Writers?"

興味深い点
ーーーーーーー
Assessmentの定義とは生徒を「書き手」として知り、それを次の教育に反映すること
p. xiv "Assessment is the challenging intellectual work of getting to know students as writers and using what we learn about them to help us decide what they need to learn next (in conferences and mini-lessons)."
p.2 Good writing teachers are "constantly learning about their students as writers." (a habit of mind)

書き手としての生徒を知るとはどういうことか： Know why they write and for whom, Know what they know about writing well, Learn their writing processes

p.4-5 の表はすごい　右の欄がWhat am I learning about this student as a writer? 左の欄がWhat do I need to teach this student? 自分はこのプロセスはInformallyにEssayのコメントでやっているが、Formallyにやることが重要。

p.6-9 一年生Kaylaちゃんの例を使い、Learn About the Student -> Decide What to TeachのAssessmentのCycleを描写している。

p.11の表：
　　　縦が書くことに関する目標の一覧 これを読むだけでかなり面白い
　　　　Voice: The student includes details that reveal who she is as an individual...creates intimacy with the reader. など
　　　横は生徒の名前一覧
　　　もしそのライターにその目標が必用ならば＋をつける、目標の達成が見られるとそれに○をたす。

考えたこと・やってみたいこと・疑問
ーーーーーーーーーーーー

1. まず、Assessとは「Get to know your students as writers and assess their needs」と再認識。下手するとAssess（評価）とは生徒にどれだけ問題があるかを並べることや、Gradeをつけることと間違えやすい。
2. やってみたいのはAndersonのような表の作成である。一人ひとりのライターに関する知識や上達目標エリアを書いてみたい。一覧表にしてみたら確かにMini-Lessonのトピックが選びやすい。
3. 疑問：大学で人数が多かったり、授業時間が少ない場合、先生のLearning about the student as a writerのプロセスを学生にどう補助してもらうが大切だと思うが、どうやれば良いか？
   やはりPortfolioが頭に浮かぶ。学生がこれまで書いた作品、チェックリスト、上達したこと、難しかったこと、先生と設定した目標、今後書きたいことなどなど、学生と共同で作り上げたいものだが、どうやって？

My Reaction to Shannon's Introduction to Bioethics

Here are my summaries, reactions, and discussion questions on Shannon's text from An Introduction to Bioethics excerpted in our class reader. The photo is of author Thomas A. Shannon. Here's an interview article with him.

I. Main Points (100 words or more-focus on what you want!):

Shannon gives a number of main ethical theories and ethical terms that are useful to know when discussing bioethics dilemmas.

Ethical Theories:

1. Consequentialism decides based on comparing the various effects of various decisions, but the problem is that there is no defined standard for choosing actions,
   
2. Deontologicalism decides based on the duties that the individual has based on religion or other moral codes, but the problem is "the potential insensitivity to consequences."
3. Rights ethics decides based on what "rights" the individual should have, but there is no indication of what should happen when individual rights are in conflict,
4. Intuitionalism is a way of deciding by feeling, but it makes it difficult for one to communicate or persuade others.

Ethical Terms

1. Autonomy: The idea that individuals should be allowed to decide their own destiny.
2. Nonmalefience: The idea that we have an obligation to do no harm. If there is a conflict between one action and another, "proportionate reason" should be used to find the balance between burden/harm and benefit. (I didn't completely understand this)
3. Beneficence: We have an obligation to help others as long as it does not hurt us. It sounds good...I guess? Is it human instinct or does it need to be taught?
   
4. Justice: "What is a fair allocation of resources?" writes Shannon, but is that what justice is? That seems like "fairness" whereas justice is usually the process of finding the truth, no?
   
5. Informed Consent: Some issues are the patient's competence, the amount of disclosure that the patient wants or should get, the patient's ability to comprehend, and the voluntariness of the patient to do what he wants feels is best without coercion.
   
6. Paternalism: Should doctors or parents or other actors intervene and interrupt the autonomy of a person for some reason. Should people be forced to accept something against their will in some cases? This is very interesting. A blood transfusion for a Jehovah's witness or taking cigarettes away from a cancer patient. Should parents be restrained when they are prone to child abuse? Should the government makes laws to force people to do or not do something?
7. Rights: Are rights duties or privileges? Shannon's explanation is confusing. He talks about how "positive rights" are the duty to do something and "negative rights" are the duty to not do something (like not stop a woman who wants to have an abortion). I'm confused. Aren't "rights" what people CAN do, not HAVE TO do. Need a better source on this? Try this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also, do animals have rights? Do all humans have equal rights, and how do we determine that?

II. Critical Reactions (2 or more, agree/disagree/strange/need more evidence/examples etc. Think "How could this article be better?"):

1. On p.16-3, line 32, Shannon writes "autonomy is the all-American virtue...it celebrates the hardy individualism for which our country is famous" but he does not mention what autonomy might mean in other cultures. I think autonomy should be a universal virtue, but I am an American, so I may be biased. He needs to write about this issue to help Americans see a more multicultural perspective.
   
   
2. On p.16-5, line 11, Shannon talks about "impure" paternalism, which he says means deciding to interfere with the will of a person not only based on that person's welfare, but also the welfare of others. I think the word "impure" is strange here, as if it is somehow undesirable. In the example, the doctors try to force a father to get a blood transfusion based on not only the health of the father but also the welfare of the children who need a healthy father. Why do they call this "impure"? They need a better word.

Because it is mostly just explanations of basic ethical vocabulary and concepts, this text is difficult to react critically to! Don't worry too much if you can't find anything...The discussion questions below are more important.

III. Discussion Questions (and my answers, 3 or more)

1. If a 1 year old child needs a blood transfusion to survive, but his parents refuse for religious reasons, what should the doctor do?
   I think the doctor should give the blood transfusion. I think the child's right to live is more important than the parent's right to decide the religion of the child. In this conflict of rights, the child wins.
   
2. Should ethics be universal, or is it acceptable for ethics to be local or case-by-case? For example, should we try to find an answer like Kant's categorical imperative of "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."? Should we try to decide "All humans should always allow xxx in this specific case."
   I think universal agreement is difficult, so it may be more realistic to accept situational ethics. However, the United Nations has successfully developed some ethical codes about child's rights, for example, which suggests that universal agreement is better.
   
3. Does the life of each person have equal value in all cases? For example, as Shannon writes on p.8 about justice, should a 15 year old person be given priority over an 80 year old person for a limited resource such as an organ transplant? Should it be a random lottery, or should the doctor decide based on whose life is "priority"?
   I think it is reasonable to give priority to significantly younger persons, but I would question the justice of any prioritization by healthiness or intelligence or social worth (p.7).

Whew! This took me about an hour to type. Is this too much homework for ELP students?

The search for our new camcorder

This is an interesting learning and decision-making experience. I've just spent a few hours on the Internet and an electronics store near my house trying to figure out what we're going to buy.

We had a Victor video camera that we bought a few months before my son was born, roughly seven years ago, but it jammed and died last month just as I fired it up to record his sports day.

So...we are on the market for a new one, but there are too many damn models and specifications! I haven't cornered a sales guy yet, but I think I'll have to do that next to get some answers.

The goal is to get something reasonably priced but

1. is fairly small and easy to carry around (SD card memory makes thing lighter it seems)
2. has good zoom for kids sports events (20x?) and decent image stabilization,
3. has a good battery life (2 hours would be nice),
4. takes "good enough" video to play on a larger TV screen, say 32 or 37 inch, when we burn DVDs for relatives (so...how many pixels do we need? and do we need High Definition?)
   
5. takes good enough still photos with resolution to print nice post cards (300 Mega pixels?)
6. is easy to output video to a computer or hard drive for editing or burning or storage (so no DV tapes any more, but is it better to have a HDD capacity as well as SD cards?)

CNET recommends the Canon Vixia HF20/21 as the best current buy (See review). I kind of liked the look and feel when I was at the store today, so hmm...this may work.
On Japan's online user review/ sale comparison site Kakaku.com, it is about 56,000yen.

The most popular item on Kakaku.com seems to be the JVC Everio HM400, priced around 66,700yen. I played with this at the store today and it seemed very nice. Amazing picture quality and good battery life and recording memory capacity 32GB plus slots for additional SD cards if needed. SD card memory prices will keep falling too.

But what's the best buy? While both of those above were nice, some of the lesser spec models also seemed enough for our purposes. I mean, why not go with the HM200 which is almost half the price at 37,000? Will it make a big difference?

Kakaku does a cool comparison chart like this, which shows the HM200 to be weaker in battery life as well as image resolution. In the store today, I felt is somewhat, but the HM200 seemed OK. I like that the HM200 is lighter due to having to HDD memory. It comes with two 8GB SDHC cards instead (which retail for about 2500~4000yen each), which only records about 80 minutes. We'll probaby need to buy SDHC cards for more memory.

Online Documentaries for ARW Winter

Films related to Bioethics or "Visions of the Future" Issues

I just started up a content-based unit on bioethics (especially cloning, but not limited to that) and hope to introduce (or possibly show) some good films to my students. In January, we will move onto a until called Visions of the Future that deals with issues of progress and human development. So, here are some ideas:

Bioethics:
Some are taken from the summary of this book, Bioethics in the Movies.

My Sister's Keeper (2009, one sibling used to keep the other alive, rights to one's own body)

The Island (clones used for medical purposes)

Blade Runner (clones, engineered humans)

Gattaca (genetically engineered humans)

Million Dollar Baby (euthanasia)

The Sea Inside (euthanasia- never seen this yet)

Dirty Pretty Things (illegal sale of organs, never seen this one yet)

Dead Man Walking (death penalty)

Sicko (health insurance issues)

Supersize Me (fast food industry)

The Brave New World (1980, freely downloadable, cloning)

The Boys from Brazil (1978, cloning)


Visions of the Future:

Minority Report (Orwellian government)

Surrogates (2008, Humans use mentally remote controlled androids to their work outside of the house)

Brazil (Recommended here. Even more Orwellian? But I haven't seen this yet)

An Inconvenient Truth (Global Warming)

Other ideas? Please let me know by leaving a comment!

More links for movies:

Top 10 Bioethics Movies: http://www.wellsphere.com/bioethics-article/the-top-10-medical-bioethical-movies-you-ve-probably-never-seen/521400

Ethics Movies: http://faculty.deanza.edu/burkelarry/stories/storyReader$163