Today's Progress

Today I took the time to research articles on Mary Sheridan-Rabideau. I found a great article on zines, but it is only 4 pages long. I would like to use one of her books in my research (the one about GirlZone) but I will have to physically search/call different libraries to try and obtain a copy.

In the meanwhile, I only completed half a page of writing today. I wrote part of my introduction because I am not feeling motivated enough to work on the "meat" of my paper. Yesterday I finished 7 pages of my seminar paper in the library, but my computer accidentally became unplugged and I lost everything I had done. I did rewrite 4 pages of what I lost, but I will use my time this weekend to catch up.

Today's In-Class Work

I’m having trouble beginning to write this paper, so I decided to make a detailed outline and follow it closely. The outline will also serve as a helpful tool for me to determine how to split up sections of my bibliography.

1) Introduction of zines:
a) Definition of zine: zines (pronounced ‘zeens’) are self-published alternatives to popular culture magazines (Guzzetti & Gamboa 408).
b) History of zines and examples of zines:
i) Hard copy
ii) E-zines
2) Why studying zines and adolescent students is important:
a) Why it is important to study why and how adolescents produce and consume zines as a literary practice- 2 reasons- (Guzzetti & Gamboa 411)
3) What zines teach adolescent students:
a) Academic writing skills
i) “Anyone interested in the nature, role, and significance of literary practices under contemporary conditions has much to value to learn from zines” (Knobel 1).
ii) Zines should not be made into organic everyday literary practices, but teachers could use them to learn (Knobel 1).
iii) Christie Bott mentions zines as being graded for mechanics and content (p31)
b) Social consciousness/justice
i) General Info:
(1) Literacy as a social practice focuses on girls as members of an affinity group, or community of practice, that shares a common language and literate practices centered on similar interests (Guzzetti 2).
(2) Zines can help young people to negotiate jungle-like social conditions (Knobel 1).
(3) Zines allow students to portray their textual practices- language, ethics, dress as text, their music, and social worlds (Guzzetti 4).
(4) Have to learn new language to comprehend content of different publications (Thrasher for skateboarders, Bitch, etc.)
(5) Glossary of youth culture language used by ziners (Guzzetti 5), showcases language and discourses.
ii) Gender, Sexuality, Class, and Race
(1) Feminist activist research engenders new possibilities for research and action (Guzzetti 13)
(2) Burnt Beauty- written from feminist perspective and addresses social justice. Also addresses racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism.
4) How zines should be used in the classroom –practical application
a) Christie Bott- “The Ultimate Creative Writing Project” for sophomore students
i) Zines for every grade level because of individuality (27)
ii) “Zines Assignment” Outline (28)
iii) How to catch readers’ attention, organization (table of contents), issue of language, creative pseudonyms, types of writing to be included (poetry, prose, etc) zine titles
iv) Christie’s Rubric (what elements of academic writing did she grade) (p31)
b) When students write out of school, the educational researcher must rely on participants to allow him/her into their worlds (Guzzetti 11). Zines can integrate the classroom and the social world if teachers are willing to foster this type of environment.

Today's In-Class Work

Instead of working on my draft, I spent today's class time working on previous brainstorming activities. I am trying to narrow down the focus of my paper before I continue. Here are past in-class writing activities and pre-writing questions revisited:

Exploring the Inquiry Project Proposal

Part I: Exploration

1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your Inquiry Project.
I’m interested in looking at two related issues: first, I want to see if zines can help to engage adolescent students in classroom writing activities, and second, I want to see if zines can be an effective means of teaching the same writing skills (grammar, punctuation, organization) that are taught through traditional classroom assignments- i.e. “the research paper.”

2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?
I don’t have a lot of personal experience with zines, but I do remember reading them online when I was an adolescent. I thought they were interesting because they encompassed a variety of topics, they were written by individuals my age, and they weren’t afraid to speak out against mainstream society. I have always enjoyed reading writing that “pushes the limit.”

3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?
I think that zines- writing as a form of social consciousness- can be a tool to engage students interested in social life outside of the classroom to become more engrossed in the academic life within it.

4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?I already know that zines are written by people who enthusiastic about the subject matter. They are often homemade and cheap to manufacture. They have become especially popular among adolescents, who use zines both in print and on the internet. I am primarily interested in answering questions like: Can zines help bilingual students to assimilate? Are they equally popular among males and females? Can they teach students how to become better writers?

6. How might composition theorists and researchers approach or study this topic? Does
this approach differ from those of other related disciplines (such as communication studies)?
Researchers may approach or study this topic by doing actual experimentation with classroom curriculum. The findings of this study may be harder to determine than findings of studies performed in other related disciplines, like communications, because this study will take considerable time and it will involve a number of variables, some of which cannot be controlled. For example, it is nearly impossible for this study to be scientific- there is no way to determine that each student who engages writing zines comes from the same controlled situation.

7. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?
I could research this topic by contacting the authors of zines. There are plenty of individuals who I could find via the internet. I can compose a list of questions which I can send to several different zine writers regarding their personal experiences with zines.

Part II: FocusingWrite an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.

Can zines work as a means of engaging students in the classroom, and can they eventually work in lieu of the traditional ‘research paper’ as a means of teaching students writing skills like grammar, punctuation, structure, and organization?

Revisiting the Inquiry Project Proposal

When the general public considers the subject I’m working with, what are the issues, questions or concerns that they think are important to discuss? Do these questions and concerns differ from those of the scholarly discourse community?

The general public probably feels that there are several issues and concerns with the subject I’m working with. For example, zines are considered outlets for free speech. If used in the classroom, would any subject matter be censored? These probably do not differ from questions that the scholarly discourse community would have, because they involve issues of what constitutes “acceptable” let alone “scholarly” writing. In discussions of my subject, what are some of the status quo assumptions that appear to go unsaid but nonetheless seem almost universally believed? For example, if I am exploring how writing should be taught in high school, what do most people tend to believe about the kinds and amount of writing that high school students should do? What do people believe writing teachers should do to prepare students for the world beyond high school? How do people believe that teachers should respond to students’ writing?

In discussions of my subject, people probably don’t consider zines to be a useful means of teaching effective writing. In today’s high school curriculum, most instructors rely solely on use of the research paper as a means of teaching writing skills. They probably feel that there is no reason to stray from the use of research papers because they are considered scholarly and respectable among the academic community, whereas zines are not as accredited. In texts that people produce about my subject, what kinds of outcomes or results do they expect the texts to have with readers? Do writers about my subject usually expect a reader simply to consider their ideas, to believe in them strongly, to take some specific action? What?

In the texts I’ve read about my subject, people have expected the outcomes and results to be positive. However, the texts I’ve read are written by teachers who seem more liberal, whereas I’m not finding a lot of feedback from traditional writing instructors. Writers about my subject seem to state their findings as fact and more or less advocate that zines should be utilizing within classroom curriculum.


“Factness”

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?

If I want to talk with someone who can provide me with factness, I think the best way to do this is to contact someone who is directly involved with zines. I would like to find individuals via the internet, a male and a female, who write for different zines. What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question?

I could read a variety of actual zines- or read articles written by teachers who have used zines, or mothers who have seen zines work for their adolescent students.

What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)

Besides talking to people or acquiring information, I could also talk with my peers regarding this information. In casual conversation, I could see what my friends and classmates believe about adolescent writers and use of independent writing assignments.

New Ideas for Inquiry Project Proposal

I have decided to scrap my last proposal because my idea was too vague and I couldn't really decide on which direction to take things...

Instead, I think I would like to focus on how gender affects composition. I did some work on Google and found an interesting article by Dr. Sherrie L. Graden, a professor at the University of Mississippi- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3651/is_199401/ai_n8715387

Dr. Graden writes about her personal experiences in the classroom with male and female writers. In her experience, she finds that "many women have been socialized to speak and write in alternative discourse styles--to converse through connection and consensus and to incorporate emotive processes into our discourses." However, she feels the university alienates these women because it privileges forms of discourse that are largely androcentric. As theorist Carol Gilligan believes, many women have been socialized to speak and write in alternative discourse styles--to converse through connection and consensus and to incorporate emotive processes into discourses (In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development, 1982).

I want to take a look at some of the scholars mentioned in the article- Nadya Aisenberg and Mona Harrington (Women in Academe: Outsiders in a Sacred Grove, 1988), Cinthia Gannett (Gender and the Journal: Diaries and Academic Discourse, 1992), Susan Meisenhelder ("Redefining 'Powerful' Writing: Toward a Feminist Theory of Composition" in Journal of Thought, Fall 1985), and Elizabeth Strater (Academic Literacies, 1991) -- all of these articles focus on how the university can alienate women.

Dr. Graden argues that women are often less comfortable than men with the rational argumentation privileged by the academy. Interesting- I don't really fall into this category (I prefer clear and concise assignments as opposed to creative ones).

Still, I think this is fascinating. I will try to take a closer look at the articles on this subject and I promise I will post a new Inquiry Project Proposal and annotated bibliography sometime later this evening.

Slow process, but I think I'm finally getting there.

Trimbur Response

In John Trimbur's article, "Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning," the author aims to examine two important criticisms of the collaborative learning process. The first criticism argues that use of consensus is dangerous and stifles voice and creativity. The second criticism argues that things like selves, knowledge, readers, and writers are indeed socially constructed. In evaluating these two critiques, Trimbur concludes that consensus does not need to result in accommodation- this only contingent upon teachers' practices. He feels consensus is a powerful tool for generating differences, identifying authority, an determining who has the power to speak and what counts as a meaningful statement.

First, Trimbur looks at arguments from those who believe that consensus is harmful, like John Dewey. Dewey believes that the consensus will lead to conformity and feels that "the individual should be saved from the group." Trimbur argues that this is extreme and untrue, and that fear of consensus will prohibit peer groups from occurring and helping students to learn. By preventing a class of students from becoming a participatory learning community, students miss crucial guidance and positive criticism that their peers could elicit. This reminds me of the cliched saying, "two heads are better than one."

The second critique, strongly supported by Ken Bruffee, veers in the opposite direction of the first critique. This critique emphasizes the influence of using the classroom and culture of teaching in individual learning. Bruffee suggests that "how we teach" is "what we teach." Bruffee follows Richard Roty's notion of conversation, which states that "learning is a shift in a person's relations with others, not a shift inside the person that now suits him to enter new relationships." Although Trimbur agrees with both Bruffee and Roty , he also believes that collaborative learning needs to be looked at as more than just a process of consensus-making- it needs to be taken a step further.

Trimbur believes that collaborative learning needs to be seen as a process of identifying differences and locating these differences in relation to each other. Furthermore, he suggests that we need to begin collaborative classes by asking why interpretation has become the unquestioned goal of literary studies. This, in Trimbur's opinion, will help us to see what kinds of readings have been excluded and devalued over time. Students have been taught to segregate readings (Shakespeare vs. Stephen King) but they have not been taught to understand where these differences come from. What's the point in performing an action if you never understand why you are doing it, anyway?

Trimbur proposes a revised notion of consensus that focuses more on how students use consensus to open gaps in conversation and less on how students achieve consensus. He wants to see consensus not as a reconciliation but as a desire of humans to live and work together regardless of differences. In order to do this, he feels that students should be organized non-hierarchically so that all discursive roles are available to all participants. This will create what Trimbur calls a "heterogeneity without hierarchy." In layman's terms, students should not be forced to conform together, but they should be allowed to foster a learning environment where they reach understanding from each student's equal participation.

Overall, I liked reading Trimbur's critique of the two dominate views of collaborative learning. It got a little confusing and somewhat dense in some parts, but I think I understood the author's main idea. This article helped me to put what we have already learned about different theorists, like Dewey and Bruffee, into perspective. I think Trimbur brings up a very good point when he emphasizes the importance of achieving collaboration without imposing a hierarchy. This is something that I feel happens a lot in different classroom environments. Stronger students sometimes dominate conversation with their thoughts and ideas. However, I'm not so sure that these hierarchical rankings can - or should- be avoided. Hierarchies occur naturally in any group situation and often foster more competitive thinking and greater contribution from those who may not always participate. Trimbur believes that these "bottom" individuals become complacent when they do not hold great positions of power, "going with the flow" and not speaking their own minds; but I will argue that this situation does not cause people to lose their opinions. I believe that this type of environment only encourages "distant" individuals to work harder to change their hierarchical standings. If students are generally more complacent, they will learn to change their ideologies or fall behind. It's a dog-eat-dog world and students should not be 'babied' in the classroom. If you can't hack it, too bad for you- that's the ugly truth of life.

Factness

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?

My boyfriend's sister, Lauren, is a kindergarten teacher at a local grade school. She is currently a graduate student at St. Francis where she is getting a master's degree to become a reading specialist.

Lauren has a lot of experience working with very young students who are just beginning to develop both literacy and composition skills. In the past, she has also taught second graders. I am curious to see what her thoughts and feelings are on the connection between literacy and writing skills. Her strong interest in reading skills, combined with her experience in early education make her a good candidate for response on this type of theory.


What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question?

Recently, I found an interesting newspaper editorial written by a former grade school teacher. This individual believes that his students would have never succeeded as writers if he had not imposed a reading-heavy curriculum.

Although an editorial isn't a scholarly source, it is a source that offers "factness" about the question. I think this article would be ideal for me to use.


What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)

To acquire information or factness, I could take an informal survey of early students. For example, I could ask Lauren if it would be possible for me to sit in during her kindergarten class. I could interview a few of the "stronger" and "weaker" writers (can kindergarteners actually write?) and question them about their reading habits.

Since these students are only 5 years old, maybe it would be possible to send the surveys home for their parents to answer (in order to elicit a more accurate response).

This is just a general idea off the top of my head- I definitely need to spend more time considering what will be a good way to obtain information outside of reading/talking to people.

Inquiry Project Proposal Questions

When the general public considers the subject I’m working with, what are the issues, questions or concerns that they think are important to discuss?

The general public probably considers this subject important because it proposes a new method of teaching writing that could be more beneficial to students’ overall educations than techniques currently utilized now. People understand that reading is important for a multitude of reasons, but they may be hesitant to trust that reading can also work as a tool for teaching different writing components, like grammar, punctuation, and spelling. The public will probably want substantial evidence to prove that this technique works and they may be concerned if this is not possible to find at the current time.

Do these questions and concerns differ from those of the scholarly discourse community?
I don’t think so- in general, all scholarly discourse communities seem to ask the same questions- they all want to see thorough support and evidence to back proposed theories.

In discussions of my subject, what are some of the status quo assumptions that appear to
go unsaid but nonetheless seem almost universally believed? For example, if I am exploring how writing should be taught in high school, what do most people tend to believe about the kinds and amount of writing that high school students should do? What do people believe writing teachers should do to prepare students for the world beyond high school? How do people believe that teachers should respond to students’ writing?

Most people believe that reading helps students in all aspects of their education, but I would argue that most people do not think that there is a direct connection between teaching literacy and learning the “knots” and “tangles” of the writing process. I assume most people feel spelling tests and rhymes (i before e except after c) are the most effective methods of teaching spelling, but I feel that becoming very familiar with spelling, through reading, is the most effective method.

In texts that people produce about my subject, what kinds of outcomes or results do they expect the texts to have with readers? Do writers about my subject usually expect a reader simply to consider their ideas, to believe in them strongly, to take some specific action? What?

I think people may be skeptical because this teaching theory seems simple in comparison to other theories that have been used for many years. People often shun new ideas because they feel that the most complex idea is best just because it is more complicated (whatever happened to Ockham’s razor, anyway?) However, I think this theory is enlightening and could really help people to understand how writing can be taught in a variety of ways outside of the established norm.

Inquiry Project Proposal

Inquiry Project Proposal (I was unable to print this so I am posting it for comments)

I am interested in learning about how literacy skills affect composition skills. I attribute my personal experience as an avid reader to the fact that I am a skilled writer. From a very young age, I spent a great deal of time reading everything from the backs of cereal boxes to "classroom companions" to poetic works by Sylvia Plath. nobody is reading this. I think my exposure to skilled writing in a variety of academic discourse communities allowed me to become familiar with what constitutes good writing. I would like to see what research has been done on this subject and if there are any theorists who can attest to similar experiences. I am motivated to learn more about this topic because I feel that it can help future generations of children put a greater emphasize on reading skills in order to accelerate in development of good composition skills.

I feel that encouraging heavy emphasis on reading at a young age will help children to avoid problems that beginning writers often face. Those who have advanced literacy skills will have a better understanding of “knots” and “tangles” of the writing process, such as sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I think that reading provides students with a subconscious understanding of how to model their own writing.

In my seminar paper, I would like to address several questions. First, I would like if research has been done this particular topic or topics similar to it. Second, I am curious to see if any primary school teachers have emphasized reading-heavy curriculums and what the outcome of these experiences has been.

I intend on using sources from journals on J-Stor, and I would like to spend time researching different teaching journals (at the Elmhurst College library and at the Elmhurst Public Library)

Lu Response

In Min-Zhan Lu’s article, Professing Multiculturalism, the author seeks to explore the question of how to conceive/practice teaching methods which use a multicultural approach to style. She is especially interested in looking at styles of writing that are full of error. Lu has two motivations for doing this: (1) concern about theory and teaching practice and (2) concern about the division between the role of composition teachers and the role they play as students, teachers, or scholars in other areas.

Lu looks at two stories that showcase this kind of division. In Gertrude Stein’s story, Stein is approached by a young man who questions her writing ability. He questions her because he believes that: (a) the writer’s knowledge of English is conditional upon whether or not the writer is a native speaker and (b) concern that the writer has been “imperfectly educated.” These are often false assumptions “educated” speakers make about the validity of writers who fall outside of mainstream society.

In Lu’s second story, Theodore Dreiser is questioned by a publisher who does not care for Dreiser’s “uneven style.” In this instance, Dreiser seeks out people he feels are strong writers and has them correct his grammar and sentence structure. He is not as assertive as Stein and changes his entire format to become more like the “educated” Americans he admires. This is a problem because the powerful writing techniques utilized by Dreiser are lost and thus his book has lost its true character.

Lu believes that creating a teaching method which views the classroom as a “contact zone” can correct these problems. In her opinion, “form” and “content” are intertwined in a way that they cannot operate separate from each other. Lu does not think writers should “throw out” grammar, but she feels they should learn to appreciate others who have different ranges of choice as writers. These individuals should be able to choose how they write in the context of the history, culture, and society in which they live. Not everyone is the same, and Lu believes that writers’ culture often brings a great deal of power to their writing.

This article reminded me of the Perl and Sommers’ article we read a short while back. Perl, Sommers, and Lu all believe that students’ writing suffers if they are unable to articulate their ideas in clear and concise fashion. If the writing is unclear and hard to understand, readers will not be able to get past the form to evaluate the content. I agree with this argument because I become very frustrated when I cannot understand what beginning writers are attempting to say.

In my opinion, if a writer is capable of understanding complex ideas and making strong arguments, he/she has already mastered the “hardest” part of the writing process. Grammar and punctuation can be easily corrected by enabling spell-check or asking another person to proofread the work. I feel that individuals who struggle with these “knots” and “tangles” should be responsible for seeking out help if they want their thoughts and ideas to be understood and respected. The reason we have grammar and punctuation is so that we have a uniform understanding of writing and a clear way to communicate with each other. In this respect, I don't see why 'unskilled' writers would do themselves a disservice by not editing their thoughts, especially if they have do important ideas that are worth sharing.

Inquiry Project Questions

Part I: Exploration

1. I plan to focus on how good reading skills correlate with good writing skills. I believe that young children best learn things like grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and organization from reading and not being "taught" how to write.

2. My mom spent a great deal of time reading to me when I was younger. As a result, I've spent my life reading anything and everything. I believe that I learned to write as a result of my strong background as a reader.

Also, I attended a Montessori school from the preschool-kindergarten. I think that this innovative approach to learning really helped me give me a strong foundation for the rest of my education. I'm interested in taking a closer look at the "Montessori method" and how it factors into reading/writing development.

3. Personally, I feel that my experience with reading is what taught me to be a strong writer. Perl and Sommers say that "unskilled writers" are those who trip over "knots and tangles"- but I think that students who spend a lot of time reading can easily overcome these obstacles and avoid this writing stage all together. I'm interested in seeing if anyone else has theorized the same thing!

4. I have some general knowledge about this topic. I know that being a strong reader is something that will benefit people in all facets of life. I want to see if focusing on reading at an early age will allow writers to alleviate the problems that beginning writers normally face. I'm most curious about seeing what studies have been done on this theory and to find if statistics are available.

5. Composition theorists may not really like this idea, because it eliminates the need for some of their proposals. In my view, reading will negate the need for theories on teaching things like grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. I'm going to argue that heavy emphasis on reading at an early age will help students subconsciously learn to become familiar with all of these things so that they are not a problem when they begin to write. After all, in my experience, I can always tell which students spend a lot of time reading by taking a look at their spelling. The only way to really learn something is to experience it- and the only way to experience different spellings and definitions is through reading.

7. My boyfriend's sister Lauren is a kindergarten teacher and she is currently in a master's program to get a degree as a reading specialist. I want to ask her if she has any personal feelings on this theory or if she has learned anything about it before. I'm also going to ask her if she has any professors who I may be able to contact via email about this.

Furthermore, I'm thinking about contacting the Montessori school I attended/researching how Montessori schools work.

Part II: Developing strong reading skills in young children will help them to become accomplished writers because it will subconsciously teach them what constitutes "good writing" and therefore help them to avoid the struggles that "unskilled writers" usually have.

Jacqueline Jones Royster Response

Overall, I really enjoyed Jacqueline Jones Royster's When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own. I thought the author was very insightful, and I liked how she connected cross-boundary discourse with three personal real-life scenarios. This allowed me to put myself into Royster’s shoes and really understand the depth of what she was explaining. The author’s task in the essay is threefold: (1) present scenes which server as personal testimony, (2) draw from these scenes suggestions about how the nature of voicing is problematic, and (3) propose that theories and practices should be transformed (612).

In “Scene One,” Royster discusses her difficulty with being an audience member when she is also the subject matter. She speaks about her difficulties listening to “authorities” remark on the African American community, when she herself is the “real” expert as someone who actually belongs to the said community. Royster claims that "when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted" (613). This is something that every single human being can relate to- because no one can possibly control who speaks about them and if/when they will have an opportunity to contribute to the conversation. The problem with this, Royster claims, is that this ultimately creates a tension (even unintentionally) in the discourse community. To elaborate on this experience, the author also discusses the concept of 'home training': it doesn’t matter how intelligent you are, or how much authority you have, you cannot go around “name calling.” This is not only dehumanizing, but it is also just plain bad manners- something far worse than sloshing soup or using your dinner napkin as a tissue. To alleviate this problem, Royster proposes that we develop specific codes of behavior to maintain honor, manners, and respect. This is a good solution, but perhaps it is something far easier said than done.

In “Scene Two,” Royster describes a situation where she has chosen not to be distracted or consumed by her rage, but to look at what she can do in response to these typically offensive situations. She stresses the importance of a negotiator, or a person who can work to cross boundaries and work as a “guide.” In this scene, Royster talks about how when she talks about African American women, she is often met with people who seem surprised and silent. She describes this experience in Du Bois’ words as “the sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of other, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in an amused contempt and pity” (616). In short, Royster says the only way to combat this is just to learn to speak without clenching her teeth- and to keep on talking without taking the audience at face value.

In “Scene Three,” Royster describes a situation where she reads a scene from a novel that requires historical understanding. As she read, Royster engaged in the dialect of the characters in order to really give depth to the text. When she finished the passage, she was greeted by a friend who complimented her on using her “authentic voice.” This, like other instances of cross-boundary discourse, irked Royster. She believes people have many authentic voices and that they should not be pressured into choosing one voice over another. Furthermore, each of these voices is equally "authentic" regardless of how often each voice is utilized.

Like Lindsay stated, I think this idea can apply to our tutoring experiences. Tutees and Tutors alike both need to focus on finding the voice that will best work for the purpose of their communication. For example, I may refrain from talking in cuss words or slang, because I want to present the idea that I am taking this assignment seriously and that I think it has merit.

In the conclusion of her article, Royster encourages people to focus on practice- practice exchanging perspectives and meanings. We need to learn to do these things in a respectable manner so that we do not alienate the others around us. We do not want to create angry audiences or disheartened speakers, so we must come to a collective understanding for what will best foster a healthy discourse community.

This article reminds me of what we have learned about David Bartholomae and his “bastard discourse.” Bartholomae advocates using the jargon and advanced writing techniques of an expert in order to best become an expert. I think this is similar to what Royster is describing when she talks about using “authentic voices.” Royster claims that we already have these expert voices inside of us (a little different from what Bartholomae is saying) and just because we may not use them at all times does not mean we are “faking it” when we do use them. In short, I think these concepts overlap, but I do see where they verge off into different directions.

Bizzell Response

In Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing, Patricia Bizzell begins by asking the fundamental question of what knowledge must be had about the writing process. Originally, teachers assumed that writing style was the only necessary tool that students need; but more recently it has been realized that many students also need to be taught how to think if they are to become able writers.

Although they agree that each individual possesses the mental capacity to learn complex language structure, composition specialists tend to disagree on how writing is learned and affected by society. The first group ‘sees writing as primarily inner-directed’ (388), and is more interested in an individual’s cognitive development prior to its ‘contamination’ by native discourse communities. The other group primarily sees writing as outer-directed, and therefore is more interested in the ways that an individual’s community shapes and alters the way he/she learns language. Inner-directed theorists see cognitive development in terms of writing to have four stages: Individual, Experience, Society, and Writing situation. It is essentially a timeline, with the first location being an individual’s innate capacity to learn complex language structure, and the last stage being able to apply the conditions learned in order to direct thoughts and communication to a particular unique audience for a particular purpose. Outer-directed theorists, on the other hand, believe that fundamental structures cannot be taught, and that learning language cannot be done outside of a social context that enables it. In other words, if no discourse community that an individual belongs to exhibits formal language structure, the individual thus will not be able to learn it.

Bizzell then states that in order to answer the questions that we have about the writing process, we must borrow ideas from both schools. Therefore, she says, we should ‘think of the current debate between the two schools as a kind of fruitful exchange that enlarges knowledge, not as a process that will lead to its own termination’ (392).

Bizzell goes on to discuss Flower and Hayes, both inner-directed theorists that use Protocol analysis as their primary research tool. Bizzell points out the problem in their model- it answers only the 'why' but not 'how' part of the process. The Translating and Planning aspects of Flower/Hayes’ model become separated, with translating being the emptiest and planning being the fullest. Vygotsky contends that a model that does this will not be complete in describing the use of language, because they are not separate in the actual use of adult language.

Overall, I enjoyed Bizzell’s article and felt like it made a lot of sense. I was able to gain a better understanding of the article by synthesizing it with what we have learned about Flower and Hayes. I thought Bizzell brought on an interesting perspective and I liked how she combined the ideas from inter-directed theories and outer-directed theories. In general, I prefer inter-directed theories because I think cognitive development is key to writing success. In my academic experience, teachers have always stressed the importance of cognitive development, and so this is something I really support.

Synthesis of Flower and Hayes and Bartholomae

In response to Dr. O’Rourke’s last comment, I do think that Flower and Hayes’ cognitive model process seems familiar to me. Like I posted on Safia’s blog, I feel that the concept of “brainstorming” is no different than what Flower and Hayes identify as “the planning process.” Both of these definitions involve the act of gathering ideas and writing them down in messy, eclectic fashion.

I could also see this act of “renaming the processes” in Flower and Hayes’ other two stages of writing as well. Hey, as Billy Shakespeare put it, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

My observations of Flower and Hayes reinforce Bartholomae's claim that the cognitive process model places invention and discovery outside of the act of writing. Flower and Hayes stress that successful writers are those who set forth goals independent of other influences. Alternatively, Bartholomae believed that outside influences (not the writer's goal-setting) largely determine what one writes, what one says or cannot say. Similarly, I observed that Flower and Hayes stress the role of monitors as those who decide how long to plan ideas before shaping them into readable text. Again, this seems to support Bartholomae's claim that the discovery of ideas takes place before the act of writing.

Overall, I think that Flower and Hayes and Bartholomae all agree that writing is a process and what matters is not the product but the PROCESS of getting to that product. As Maria pointed out, this was stated pretty explicitely in both articles. Regardless of their overall agreement, I feel that these theorists have trouble reaching a consensus on where the invention aspect comes into play. Flower and Hayes' cognitive process model follows that the planning stage begins before composition, and this makes sense to me. B artholomae’s theory that invention occurs during the “task environment” and in the active writing process also makes sense to me. I don’t have a good argument for why I believe in both theories, but perhaps I’ll come to a conclusion one of these days.

Flower and Hayes Response

Flower and Hayes' article summarizes their personal view of cognitive process theory. In this view, cognitive process theory rests on four key points: (1) the process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers organize during the act of composing; (2) these processes have a hierarchical organization in which any given process can be contained in any other; (3) the act of composing itself is a goal-directed process determined by the author; (4) writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating high-level goals and supporting goals, and by changing/remaking goals based on what has been learned (p274).

In Flower and Hayes' cognitive process theory of writing, the authors stray from the usual paradigm of writing stages. Instead of using major units of analysis as stages of completion, the major units of analysis are seen as elementary mental processes. The advantage of doing this is that researchers (teachers/tutors in terms most applicable to us) can compare the composing strategies of good and bad writers.

Flower and Hayes believe that the act of writing involves three major elements: the task environment, the writer's long-term memory, and the writing process. The task environment includes everything outside of "the writer's skin." Each word in the text determines what word choices can come next. In turn, this causes the writer to contribute a great deal of time and attention during composition. The second element of writing is the writer's long term memory, which is where the writer has stored knowledge of audience and writing plans. Long-term memory, unlike short-term, is relatively stable and provides the writer with organized information. Flower and Hayes take up two main issues with long-term memory. First, some writers have trouble accessing all of the things inside of it. Second, when they do access this information, they cannot take it for face value- they must mold it to fit their rhetorical purposes.

The third element, the writing process, seems to be a little more complex than the first two elements. It contains three processes: Planning, Translating, and Reviewing. In the planning process, writers form internal representations of the knowledge that will be used in their writing. This is usually more abstract than what the writers would use in rough drafts and is best suited for brainstorming purposes. The planning process involves a number of sub-processes, most obviously the act of generating ideas. After all, where else could a writer start? In addition, planning encompasses the act of organization and also the process of goal-setting. It is crucial that these goals are the ones set forth by the writers and not their outside influences. The second element of the writing process, translating, is basically the act of putting the “planning” ideas into words. The information generated in planning may be in code or messy notes but this is the stage where it must be clearly restated. The final writing process, reviewing, requires both evaluating and revising.

Flower and Hayes also make note of how writers function as “monitors,” or strategists who decide when to move from one process to the next. For example, monitors determine how long they might spend planning ideas before translating them into readable English language.

Overall, I was able to understand majority of Flower and Hayes’ cognitive process theory of writing. I could logically follow what the authors said about the three major elements of writing. These elements made perfect sense to me. In a way, I thought Flower and Hayes’ theory was really nothing new. I felt like the authors were defining their processes in the same exact terms I have seen a thousand times. For example, the “planning” process of writing is not any different than my understanding of brainstorming. Both processes require writers to generate ideas and neither process requires writers to put these ideas into coherent sentences.

Towards the end of the article, I began to stumble over what the authors were saying. I think I got the main points of this article, but I hope to clear up anything I may have missed in classroom discussion. If anyone reads this and notices that I’m way off target, please feel free to post and set me straight. :)

David Bartholomae's "Inventing the University"

David Bartholomae defines "inventing the University" as a writing process that college students must undertake everytime they craft a new piece. In order to "invent the University," students have to assemble and mimick the language of the specific discourse community that they want to join. In other words, if a college student want to be an effective writer, he/she must learn to speak the language of his/her specific audience. To do this, Bartholomae stresses the importance of building bridges between personal point of view and the reader's. College writers must act like boxing champs- always anticipating the opponent's next move. However, instead of predicting when to block a punch, writers are predicting a response to the metaphorical "punch" of a reader's assumptions and biases.

Bartholomae emphasizes with the fact that it is often difficult for students to take on authoratative roles in their papers because they may not feel like they are qualified to do so. After all, reading a few books does not give someone the confidence of an expert. Bartholomae is very clear when he says that students do not have to be experts, they just have to act like experts. By engaging in this facade, writing students will finally be allowed to immerse themselves in the a new discourse community. This reminds me of the old cliche "if it talks like a duck...and walks like a duck...then it probably is a duck." In other words, acting the part is just as good as being the part. College writers will inevitably become effective writers by acting like effective writers. Effective writers tune out outside influences (like whether or not this is exactly the teacher wants) in favor of the concerns of their discourse communities.

Bartholomae claims that a good place to start this acting process is by starting a commonplace. A commonplace is "a statement that carries with it its own necessary elaboration." In other words, this is a technique that will spark the audience's curiosity and thus give the writer an important purpose. As stated by Flower and Hayes, this process allows the writer to create goals. These goals may start independently and privately, but they ultimately become public when others have access to the work. Goals help to make the paper effective because they give the writing a purpose- and hey, everything needs a purpose.

I enjoyed reading this article and I think it came at a very appropriate time. During our discussion with Ian this past Friday, it certainly seemed like a lot of us are struggling with our classroom assignments. We are all eager to become successful tutors and we are finding out that this is not an easy thing to do. As a class, we are experiencing a variety of complications- from difficulties scheduling meetings to having tutees who are ridiculously disinterested in us. However, by perserving on and acting the part of "good tutors", we are still achieving the goal of participating within our discourse community. Even if things aren't going as smoothly as they do on paper, we are responding to different situations and learning from them. In this respect, our struggles have just as much merit as our successes. This is sometimes hard to see- after all, as college students, we can't help but to be concerned with our grades. We want the successes. We are inclined to do what we feel will yield the A or B.

What I've discovered is that this course is not about taking the one perfect path. There is NO such thing as a universal road. We must all find the path that works for us and that's how we achieve the most that we can. I think Ian really helped to clarify this on Friday, leading to a very effective breakthrough. Ironically enough, finding what works best for myself and my tutee- with no concern to what any other pair does, or what any particular theorist says- will help us both the most and thus it will yield the best grade anyway. :) Win-win situation.

Kudos to you, Ian Turner.

Bitch Magazine

I think our in-class discussion about Bitch allowed us to really grasp a firm understanding of "audience addressed" and "audience invoked." This magazine used feminist theory as a way of critiquing and commenting on what we are usually exposed to in society- mainstream pop culture. The fact that Bitch is so different from other pop culture magazines (Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Seventeen) adds a whole new dimension that puts it in an entirely different category.

I think that the writers of Bitch are very in tune with their demographic. Obviously, "audience addressed" is one of their primary concerns. These writers are speaking to women (and yes, men) who believe in the power of looking past Angelina Jolie's new Versace dress and focusing more on the charity event where it is worn. This magazine is written for college educated individuals who are focusing less on the superficial and more on the betterment of society. This magazine is for the women who want careers but not jobs, marriage but not becoming housewives, social lives but not watching Britney Spears shave her head on E! television. Bitch magazine wants to appeal to readers who are aware of the tabloid issues around us, but who no longer want to make them priorities. In short, Bitch is working to re-invent our societal agenda and put our focus back on the "stuff that counts."

As far as "audience invoked," I think Bitch appeals to a variety of individuals. After all, the name Bitch is controversial in itself. Whether people hate the idea or love it, they will still pick up a copy of the magazine and flip through it out of sheer curiosity. Bitch is thought provoking and has merit just on the grounds that it causes people to think outside of the box-- and maybe just that it causes them to THINK in general. After all, it is not typical of the mindless reading that most Americans have gotten accustomed to doing. Reading Bitch requires both an open mind and room to grow.

In a way, I see Bitch as the feminist counterpart to the "N-word" in the African American community. These two terms both fall into the category of taking negative terms and making them into something positive and empowering. By no means am I saying these two examples are identical- of course, this is comparing apples and oranges. The word "bitch" does not carry half as much meaning as the "n-word," but I do think that in some respects they are partially similar.

Ede and Lundsford Reading Response

In "Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked," Ede and Lunsford attempt to determine the role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. In today's academic discourse, scholars and writing teachers are having trouble defining "audience" and determining what it means to address an audience.

Ede and Lundsford argue that there are two main theories for teachers to choose from when teaching composition students about audience. The first theory is “audience addressed,” which instructs students to write to a specific and realistic audience. Those who prefer this theory have been greatly influenced by speech communication practices. They identify most with “real-world” writing. “Audience addressed” theory is strongly supported by theorists Ruth Mitchell and Mary Taylor, who believe the first priority in teaching composition is determining strategies for structuring ideas. However, “audience addressed” theory fails to work for several reasons. Most notably, it does not recognize the role writers play as both creators and readers. It also places too much emphasis on the role of audience and not enough on the role of the writer.
Ede and Lundsford’s second theory is “audience invoked,” which instructs students to write to an imaginative audience. Those who favor this theory argue that a real audience limits writers because it is impossible for them to understand audience as personally as a speaker can. “Audience invoked” theory works by providing cues for the reader which help to define the role the author wishes for the reader to take. “Audience invoked” theory corresponds with Ong’s argument that a writer's audience is always fictitious. Ong believed that writers are responsible for constructing an “audience” and that in response; the audience will play along accordingly. The problem with Ong's theory is that it is too simple- there are far too many restrictions that hinder this theory from realistically working out.
In conclusion, Ede and Lundsford determined that a fully elaborate view of audience must balance the creativity of the writer with the creativity of the reader. It is important that each of these components is given equal consideration. Ede and Lundsford believe that if an enriched conception of audience can be achieved, we can better understand the complexities of writing.

Personally, I found this article to be incredibly confusing. I had to re-read it several times. I also spent time browsing my classmates’ responses to better understand what Ede and Lundsford were trying to articulate. In the end, I was able to see that the authors were basically saying audience involves a balance between the creativity of the writer and the creativity of the reader. I think that this article was more or less a waste of time because I don’t believe that the concept of “audience” is hard to define. Whenever a writer begins to work, he/she is writing with a goal in mind. In order to achieve this goal, he/she has an audience in mind. Thus, audience is defined subconsciously without much consideration. Granted, I can understand how better identifying an audience may help to achieve the writer’s goal, but I am not sure the information in this article is very helpful. I can see why there is a big difference between the audience of a writer and the audience of a speaker, but I do not see how there is much of a difference between a "realistic" audience and an "imaginative" audience. How do these two really change the writer's work? Overall, I am still very confused and I hope to make more sense of this article during classroom discussion.

Ong Reading Response

In Walter Ong's article, The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction, he discusses the dynamic relationship of "audience" to writing. In Ong's opinion, there is a huge difference between the audience of a speaker and the audience of a writer. Although the speaker's audience is easily accessible, the writer's audience can be far away in both time and space. This is why writers must have difficult and mysterious skills. The spoken word has its meaning established by its situation, but the written word cannot do this.

To be successful, Ong argues that writers must be able to fictionalize their audiences. This means two things: (1) the author constructs the audience cast in some sort of role- entertainment seekers, family, neighborhood friends, etc; (2) the audience correspondingly fictionalizes itself. It is important that audience members play the roles that the author has intended for them to have. When this occurs, great literary works, like Samuel Clemens' Life on the Mississippi and Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer come to exist. This is why Ong believes that fictionalizing audiences is a key component of literary tradition.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this article but I had trouble understanding the full context of what Ong was saying. This is why my summary is especially short today :). I feel the general idea of the text is that writing is more difficult than speaking because writers cannot anticipate (and thus respond accordingly) to their readers' inquiries. This article seems similar to the article we recently ready by Bruech. Bruech believes that writing cannot be taught, and Ong believes that an audience cannot be predicted. In this respect, both authors would agree that writing is a mysterious, complex process which cannot possibly be approached in the same manner by any two individuals. In Bruech's article, she reviews arguments made by post-process scholar Thomas Kent. Kent believes that writing is not a system or process and cannot be taught as such. While he believes that grammar and sentence structure can be coded, he feels that these systems should not be confused with the writing act, which is uncertain and indeterminate. Again, this theme of uncertainty is blatantly obvious in Ong's work.

From my own personal experience, I can't possibly justify this sentiment, I think that writing can be predictable and that it can be taught. I think coming to the conclusion that all writing is outrageously different is too hasty of a conclusion. I think that Ong and Bruech need to understand that it is impossible to find one method that will work for every single student. As members of academia, they should be the first to acknowledge that every individual learns from different methods at different rates.

Breuch Reading Response

"Post-process" theories of writing instruction have recently begun to question whether or not prewriting, writing, and rewriting are really a good explanation of composition. Many scholars have argued that the writing process has been reduced to a series of coded phases that can be taught. This is something we have seen in earlier readings, particularly from both Sommers and Perl.

Bruech believes that the process of coding can be problematic because it generalizes the writing act. She does not think it is possible for one post-process pedagogy to concretely apply to all writers. However, she believes that post-process theory does have the benefit of offering insights for teachers. It encourages teachers to rethink their definition of writings and their methods of teaching writing.

In Bruech's article, she reviews arguments made by post-process scholar Thomas Kent. Kent believes that writing is not a system or process and cannot be taught as such. While he believes that grammar and sentence structure can be coded, he feels that these systems should not be confused with the writing act, which is uncertain and indeterminate. It is important to clarify that he is NOT saying teaching writing is impossible, he is saying that teaching writing as a system is impossible. He believes that teachers should discuss the meaning of writing and focus on two-way communication with students.

Bruech finds that there are many different implications of this post-process pedagogy. The first implication is the recognition that writing is more than a body of knowledge to be mastered. Bruech states that whether or not we agree with the depiction of process as mastery, the post-process rejection of mastery is important. In moving away from writing as a "thing," we are encouraged to look at writing as an unpredictable activity. According to Kent, the shift from writing as content to writing as activity can be explained by three assumptions: (1) writing is public; (2) writing is interpretive; and (3) writing is situated. As Bruech explains it, these are evident in assertions that "writing should change with the situation, that students interact with the world through dialectical interaction, and that rhetoric involves interpretation of social and historical elements of human discourse" (p.116).

In her conclusion, Bruech reinforces her belief that post-process theory should not be taken at face value. She feels that teachers need to spend more time listening, discussing ideas, and becoming aware of the pedagogical needs of students. Overall, she thinks that post-process theory is an important tool that can provide all teachers with valuable philosophical exercise.

After reading this article, I thought it was interesting how it directly contrasted the views of Sommers and Perl. Obviously, Bruech does not like the concept of breaking writing down into "coded" behaviors. This is supported by other scholars, such as Thomas Kent. As I've said before, I would like the opportunity to engage in one of these coded writing practices. I still think that this could be a very helpful technique. I don't agree with Bruech when she finds that this ideal is unobtainable. I think that proponents of this strategy have put in a lot of time, effort, and research before determining that this method is effective.

Perl and Sommers

In The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers, Perl discusses the important findings from a study of the writing processes of five unskilled college writers. The goal of the study was to address three main questions: (1) How do unskilled writers write? (2) Can their writing processes be analyzed in a systematic, replicable manner? (3) What does an increased understanding of their processes suggest about the nature of composing in general and the manner in which wirting is taught in the schools? The study took place during the 1975-76 fall semester at Eugenio Maria de Hostos Community College of the City University of New York (what a mouthful...try fitting that name across the middle of a sweatshirt). Each student participated in five 90-minute sessions where the student spent a lot of time writing "aloud" and externalizing his/her thinking process. The researchers were not allowed to interfere with this activity.

From this study, researchers were able to create a method to chart the movements that take place during writing. This method looked at the composing process as standardized, categorical, concise, structural, and diachronic. In order to code each composing behavior, researchers created a chart and terms for distinguishing actions. These tedious steps were necessary because they provided researchers with a system that was categorical and replicable. Furthermore, researchers were also interested in the duration and sequence of behaviors. To chart this process, they created a time line and a numbering system.

There were four major findings in this study. The first finding was that teachers have been incorrect about unskilled writers. All of the students in the study engaged in a lot of internalized processes, which reveals that their writing approach was thoughtful and far from "unskilled." This lead researchers to conclude that students' lack of proficiency (not their thought processes) was the real problem- it was causing them to prematurally correct their work and lose the form of what they were writing. These unskilled writers are considered "beginners" although they are really engaging in elaborate writing processes. Too often teachers make the mistake of assuming that they need to begin from day 1, when in reality, students just need help with the "knots and tangles" of the writing process. The second implication of the study is that it has provided teachers with a replicable, graphic method of the composing process. This allows teachers to better understand how individual students write. The third implication is that several theories have been dervied from these case studies. New concepts can lead to new research and thus better understanding of the writing process. The final implication is that teachers have learned they need to study not just forms or products, but the processes that lead to them.

Overall, I think the findings of this study are really important. I think the researchers' method of coding the composing process is brilliant. It is so difficult to gauge the writing process and this allows students the opportunity to really understand their strengths and weaknesses. Composition involves so many elaborate techniques and strategies that it is sometimes hard to determine why a paper doesn't work. I have personally struggled with this problem and I find it frustrating that I cant identify the individual behaviors that may need to be modified. I don't really see any faults to this method, so I wonder why it has not been implemented in more school settings. In my opinion, it's sad that the first time I've heard of this method is my senior year in college. I think it could have really benefitted me in my early development as a writer.

The main finding of this study really seems to support the work of Donald Murray. The researchers determined that unskilled writers are still heavily engaged in internalized processes, which reveals that their writing approach is very involved and far from "unskilled." Murray would probably agree with these findings, because he believes in teaching writing as a process and not a product. He seems to understand that students often struggle with "knots and tangles" but that they should try to ignore them and focus more on the process. He would probably encourage these unskilled students to write without spending so much time on etiquette or custom.

In the Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers, Nancy Sommers writes about a case study used to chart the revision processes of student writers and experienced writers. Each writer wrote three essays which were counted and categorized by the changes made. The study identified four main revision types: deletion, substitution, addition, and reordering; and four levels of change: word, phrase, sentence, and theme. Like Perl, Sommers also created a coding method to chart these processes.

Student writers had the most trouble simply understanding what "revision" entails- which lead them only to revise in a narrow and predictable way. Sommers concluded that these writers need a set of strategies to help them identify the larger issues in the essay. Beginning students tend to shift words around or reorder lines instead of attacking the real issues only because they don't know how to attack the real issues. This is probably due to the fact that these students have always been bound by textbooks and grammar rules. Once they are finished with basic editing, they do not know how to take the next step. Alternatively, experienced writers look at revision as a whole process. This process involves several cycles, each cycle giving different levels of attention to different aspects of the paper.

Overall, the study concludes that beginning writers need to trust their own writing instincts- and use them as a guide for attacking the "whole" paper. Like the beginning students in this study, I once struggled with revision. In grade school, I only edited papers for spelling and punctuation, not form or function. I could recognize that I needed major changes but I did not know how to initiate them. Now, as a more experienced writer, I can identify with revision as a process with many different cycles. I know that one of my weaknesses is organization, so sometimes I will spend hours cutting and pasting from my work.

I think there are many similarities between Perl's case study and Sommers' case study. Both of these researchers used replicable and categorical processes. Again, this is something that I wish I would have had more experience with in grade school. This method taught both researchers quite a bit about the ins and outs of the writing process. Perl discovered that unskilled students are struggling the most with knots and tangles, not their internalized processes. This is similar to what Sommers discovered when she found that beginning writers focus on grammar and punctuation. It seems like these two writers have reached a general consensus that beginning writers need to stop worrying about grammar and take a better look at the overall picture.

Make-Up Assignments

8/31: Summary Writing and Revising (Cushman Article)

My summary has both strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I think it is effective because it is well-structured and thorough. It substantiates the author's claims with relevant examples and clear elaboration. However, I probably could have benefited from explaining things more "in my own terms." In some places, it still sounds more like I am paraphrasing the author and less like I am constructing my own interpretations of the text. This is something I should definitely focus on when writing future summaries. I think this is a problem that many students have and it is something I hope to improve over the course of this semester.


When summarizing Cushman's article, one purpose could be to educate public intellectuals. Cushman feels that they are ignoring the communities which need help the most. I would revise my summary by focusing more on Cushman's arguments and less on explaining terminology and concepts. When the audience changes, so does the goal of the summary and thus the focus of the summary needs to be revised.

Another purpose of summarizing Cushman's article could be to better understand the content. A summary provides readers with the "meat" of the article. In some cases, students can get tripped up trying to understand vocabulary and wordy sentences. By eliminating this problem, it would allow them to focus more on their responses and less on trying to understand the original material. In order to do this, I would break down my summary even more. I would focus only on main ideas and less on small detail.

9/4 Practice Conference

Although I did not have the opportunity to participate in the practice conference, I have participated in peer conferences before. In this respect, I understand the importance of speaking and listening. In order for a conference to be successful, students must be willing to spend equal amounts of time speaking and listening. The keyword here is "equal." In some cases, students will want to participate by "taking charge," but this is the wrong way to approach peer tutoring. The relationship needs to be reciprocal. Personally, this is something I often have a problem doing. I have a tendency to take the "leader" role, which may be good in most things but is undoubtedly bad when used in peer tutoring. This being said, I will proceed in this tutoring practicum by constantly assessing my role and my participation. I do not want to fall into old habits and sabotage the potential for my client's success.

I have never had many problems with criticism, so that is definitely a plus. I understand that it is important to focus on what is and isn't working. I think I can attribute this understanding to my role as the oldest child in my family. I have helped my sisters with homework assignments and I learned quickly that being overbearing is incredibly destructive. In my experience, it is best to take a passive role and respond only when the client is looking for a response. If I constantly offer up my opinions, how can the client possibly create some of her own?

Murray and Emig Reading Response

In the Preface to Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, Villanueva reveals that the goal of his work is to adequately showcase the various concepts and methods used in today’s writing. What’s more, he has elected to include several controversial discussions regarding these methods. This allows readers the opportunity to try and establish their own predispositions toward language, discourse, writing and writing instruction. I think this is a fantastic technique because it encourages critical thinking and analytical responses. By offering a variety of criticism, Villanueva allows students to develop well-informed, intelligent opinions.

In Donald Murray’s Teach Writing as a Process, Not Product, Murray emphasizes the importance of allowing writers to focus more on the writing process and less on the finished product. He believes the writing process can be broken down into 3 stages: prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Prewriting takes about 85% of the writer’s time, and it is an individual process with no guidelines or rules. Writing is the act of completing a first draft, and thus it is the quickest stage of the process. The last stage of the process is rewriting, which is reconsideration of major structures like subject, form, and audience. In order for the writing process to be most efficient, teachers need to be quiet, to listen, and to respond to the student.

In my experience, Murray’s proposed theory is very successful. As an English major, I have encountered several different professors and many different teaching methods. I feel it is crucial for students to have ample time to work on assignments. I am the world’s slowest writer and I definitely benefit from time and patience. The more time I have to work on an assignment, the more time I will spend on revision. Not that I should admit this, but I have already spent more than 2 hours on this simple reading response assignment. I have considerable trouble writing anything, even informal assignments, in a timely manner. I feel it is really inconsiderate to submit any assignment that has not been proofread or revised. If someone has to take the time to read it, I should take the time to write it!

In Janet Emig’s Writing as a Mode of Learning, the author states that writing functions as an important learning strategy. She focuses on the uniqueness of writing as a verbal process, and claims that it is often neglected in a world where English courses consist of mostly reading and listening. Unlike reading and listening, writing is original and creates a graphic recording. Moreover, writing is also very different from talking. For example, writing is a learned behavior, while talking is natural. The same attributes that make writing unique also make it an important tool for effective learning strategies. Learning strategies work with re-enforcement and self-provided feedback, both of which writing can provide. Additionally, learning strategies need to be connective and active, which writing also provides.

I know this course is only 3 weeks into the semester, but Janet Emig’s article is my favorite thus far. I definitely agree with her opinion that writing functions as an important learning strategy. Although I am an English major, I intend on pursuing a career in law. Most people would be surprised to hear that English is the #1 undergrad degree of law school applicants (and yes, political science is a close 2nd). My English studies have definitely helped me to improve in all areas of my education. In my opinion, the ability to write coherently is a skill that all people should master if they want to find true success in life- no matter what they may choose as a career path.

I found Emig’s article very similar to the article we read earlier by Kenneth Bruffee. In general, both authors feel that writing has the ability to teach more than just spelling and punctuation. Emig feels that writing can teach students how to become more efficient learners, while Bruffee feels that writing can teach students how to learn the way individuals in the academic community learn.

Writing Instruction Timeline Response

I think the timeline reveals that there is a very strong relationship between writing instruction and cultural change. In each of the time periods, there is at least one good example of how cultural change determines writing instruction. In early years, when the the Morrill Federal Land Grant of 1862 established public universities, people began to focus on applying science to economic problems. As a result, the National Education Association promoted Harvard's scientific writing, or what is today's “current-traditional rhetoric." From 1900-1917, only 4% of people attended college. As a result, highschool curriculum pushed vocational training writing, and there was much less emphasis on literary studies. From 1917-1944, events such as war and the Great Depression caused society to focus more on the individual's potential. As a result, creative writing began to boom. Basically, it can be safely assumed that the culture sets the agenda for writing instruction priorities.

The teaching of writing in schools and colleges enacts a "scene of struggle over competing claims about the purposes of education, more specifically about the society the school and college should advocate and the kind of individuals they should encourage." This was especially true during the early 1900s. Harvard and Yale disagreed on who should be taught literature. Yale prefered to cater to a few select students, while Harvard aimed to teach all students "good language habits." This reveals that while our culture feels literature studies are important, it disagrees over who they are important for, which shows that we often have issues with class struggle. This is true even today, as highschools in impoverished areas tend to focus more on vocational training and less on college preparatory curriculum.

Graff and Birkenstein's Strategies for Peer Tutors

I believe that Graff and Birkenstein’s strategies are very successful and could definitely be beneficial when used in peer tutoring. The suggested templates are a great tool for tutors, who can easily explain these basic ideas to tutees. As beginning writers, tutees will be relieved to discover that the templates are simple, concise, and easy to utilize. Sometimes starting a paper is an extremely difficult task, even for the most experienced writer. By using templates, tutees can avoid trivial difficulty and make a smooth transition into composing more sophisticated works. I will definitely advise my tutee to make good use of templates because I feel that she could benefit from becoming familiar with the structure of good conversational writing.

At first, I was hesitant to embrace the concept of templates. I felt using templates would make students lazy and uncreative. However, I see that this is not the case. Templates can work wonders for those who are having trouble with almost any aspect of writing. They can help jumpstart the writing process, organize ideas, or make the writing more conversational. Furthermore, templates are anything but uncreative. In fact, using templates will actually lead to creativity. This is because templates allow writers the opportunity to organize their information. After the information is formatted, the author will have more of an opportunity to add his/her own personal touch.

I think that some of Graff and Birkenstein's 'moves' are necessary for making peer tutoring conferences effective. For example, I feel the relationship between a tutor and a tutee must be reciprocal. Each person must be willing to reach out and address the needs of the other. This is very similar to what Kenneth Bruffee believed. Furthermore, I think that this relationship between tutor/tutee needs to be built on mutual respect. The tutor can not have a superiority complex. Unless the tutor acts like the tutee’s peer, the conference will become less successful and innovative and more like a traditional classroom environment- which will ultimately fail.

Exercise #2 (They Say, I Say)

In the introduction to "They Say/I Say": The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provide templates designed to give students a taste of the language and patterns that sophisticated writing requires. These templates focus writers' attention on what is being said while also helping them to focus on rhetorical patterns. Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein argue that the most effective writing template they offer is the "they say_____, I say_____" formula. This formula expresses personal ideas ("I say") in response to another person or group ("they say"). This is the underlying structure of effective academic writing. It prompts students to progress in their writing in ways they might have not otherwise done. As the authors themselves put it, "listening closely to others and summarizing what they have to say can help writers generate their own ideas." Although some people believe that templates stifle creativity, Graff and Birkenstein insist that they will actually help writing to become more original and creative, not less. This is because mastering established forms can help writers to make imaginative use of them. In sum, then, their view is that templates are an important tool which can help students to engage in clear academic conversation while becoming more sophisticated writers.

I agree with Graff and Birkenstein. In my view, the types of templates that the authors recommend can help return writing to its conversational base. For instance, using the "they say / I say" model shows students that they can best develop their argument by looking outward and engaging the other person's voice. In addition, this model cuts across different disciplines and genres of writing. It can be used for anything from creative writing to academic writing. Some might object, of course, on the grounds that templates seem too simplistic. Yet I would argue that the templates are only as simple as the author would like to make them. The template's content, which may be very complex, could be best organized by a basic structure. Overall, then, I believe that templates are a fantastic way to quickly organize writing in a manner that is clear and concise.

James Berlin 1880-1900

The focus of Berlin’s article is show that writing instruction has been a mix of competing claims regarding the purpose of education. This is due to various economic, political, and social changes. From 1880 to 1900, English studies in colleges and public schools focused on both literature and composition. In the early years, only rhetoric courses focused on vernacular. Historically, English has always been one of the “required” studies- a staple in grade school, high school, and college curriculums. During these times, there was generally a greater emphasis on the teaching of writing. Attention to literary texts is something that is more of a modern phenomenon. From the start, literary texts were considered an extension of ethical and social training. Oddly enough, women dominated teaching at the elementary, junior, and secondary levels. Still, they were greatly outnumbered at the college level. In 1900, 75% of all public school teachers were women.

There were many economical, political, and social changes which altered the course of college curriculum during this time period. The shift in capitalism from a laissez-faire market economy changed competition in society. Education played a large role in this transition and college became restricted to the wealthy and elite. At this time, high school was intended strictly to help students prepare for college educations. Most high schools were private. Colleges focused on preparing the “leadership” class to claim their rightful place in society. Most students majored in law, medicine, or ministry. However, all undergraduate courses were nearly identical and all of them emphasized English.

When the Morrill Federal Land Grant of 1862 passed, the structure of schooling changed. State schools were given government funds to encourage science experts to develop profitable methods of production, distribution, and exchange. In turn, these experts would work to help society to become more profitable. This grant required schools to open up their doors to minorities, so women and blacks had the opportunity to further their educations. However, this did not really work as intended. As time progressed, people argued to change high school curriculum to the science-based curriculum that was now in college. As a result, high school enrollment soared. In 1890, about 200,000 students attended public high school; in 1900 the figure doubled to 520,000 students. Since that time, attendance continued to increase.

In 1892, the National Education Association appointed a group called the “Committee of Ten.” Harvard president Charles W. Eliot served as the chair. The group worked to examine curriculum on secondary schools to help it become more cohesive with college expectations. This committee formulated a group called the Conference on English, which was responsible for organizing English studies in high schools. The Conference determined that the main objective of English was (1) to allow the pupil to understand thoughts of others and to give his/her own thoughts, and (2) to develop a taste for literature. This was a huge accomplishment because it was the first time curriculum had ever been given a definite structure.

This shift in focus made high school and colleges become part of a meritocracy. A meritocracy is a hierarchical class structure where a professional has the power to determine which problems are worth solving- based on the demands of capitalism. Thus, the objective, mechanical rhetoric students were required to learn was basically part of a scheme meant to reinforce political and economic authority and conceal that this whole event was occurring. As a result, a liberal culture emerged in response. This culture did not oppose democracy, but it argued that business of higher education was only to train leaders of society and that other societal groups (women, other minorities) were alienated from opportunities.