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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, September 17, 2007
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?
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?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, September 14, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)