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.