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. :)