Bartholomae/Elbow
I strongly disagree with the idea that academic writing must free itself from style. As a matter of fact, I think any writing is inextricably linked to personal choice, which lends itself to personal style. As writers, the choices we make in writing are our own choices. We may mimic others, but we will never be able to truly write what another author writes because our lived experience colors the words. Any choice we make while writing, the rhetorical devices used, word choice, punctuation, transitions, paragraphs, etc, are governed by how the author internalized and makes understanding of their own experiences (this includes what they’ve read and written).
I do agree that academic writing requires more attention and adherence to institutional rules, but even these conventions can be broken. For example, the personal essay students write. It’s not just the idea that makes the essay personal, it’s the way the student expresses the idea. In class we talked about how students make up a personal essay. I’ll admit I’m one of those students. While other students feel comfortable expressing their life changing experiences to a teacher they hardly know, I’m not. But just because I may make up the content of the essay, I don’t think that makes it any less personal. I’m still writing the essay. I’m using my experience as a writer and observer to choose what goes on the page. My choices are still personal, therefore making my essay personal.
As I said before, the choices writers make while writing are personal. The presentation may be different, ie the personal essay, research paper, letter, to do list, creative non-fiction, etc, but the writing remains personal.
The Last Time I Enjoyed....
This question is really hard for me to answer. I have so many interests, I almost always enjoy whatever activity for which I'm invovled. In lieu of this, I've decided to include several activities related to different parts of my life. The last book I truly enjoyed reading was Christopher Moore's Dirty Job. The last thing I truly enjoyed writing was a poem in my "book." Everytime I hang out with my family i can't imagine leaving again. I enjoy all the time I spend with the BF even if we're just napping in the middle of the day. No matter how much I complain about work, I love every minute I spend in that building. I enjoy myself in the sun, rain, snow, and wind. No matter where I am, what i am doing, there is some aspect that i find joy in. But most of all, I truly enjoy almost any interaction with pen and paper, books, and people. I guess that explains why i'm in pursuit of my teaching certification.
Landmark Essays CH 7, 16
On Perl's Piece:
Her overall arguement that writing involves forward, backword, and reflective movement remains the most valid that i've read in this class. Everything she described I've experienced at one point or another. One question though, what if a writer processes in a linear fashion? She also says "writing leads to discovery," suggesting writers find more about their own process, connection between mind and pen, grammar, literary devices, etc. by writing (Just like I realized that sentence is very awkward). I believe that assertion to be true. If we do not write, or practice writing, how will we know what to do and how we go about doing it.
On Runicman's Piece:
Writing as something fun eh? Most students don't look at a writing assignments as fun. In my experience writing for the non-english major becomes a tedious chore. The same goes for reading. I've never understood why, but then i've found so much pleasure in both activities it is hard to understand any other point-of-view. After reading Runicman's article, I couldn't help but identify with his desire to share the wonders of writing. I choose to write, teach, and share what i've read because i want others to experience the same pleasure in those activies as i do. Trying to inspire hundreds of students with writing and reading may seem niave, but something I'm willing to work for.
Her overall arguement that writing involves forward, backword, and reflective movement remains the most valid that i've read in this class. Everything she described I've experienced at one point or another. One question though, what if a writer processes in a linear fashion? She also says "writing leads to discovery," suggesting writers find more about their own process, connection between mind and pen, grammar, literary devices, etc. by writing (Just like I realized that sentence is very awkward). I believe that assertion to be true. If we do not write, or practice writing, how will we know what to do and how we go about doing it.
On Runicman's Piece:
Writing as something fun eh? Most students don't look at a writing assignments as fun. In my experience writing for the non-english major becomes a tedious chore. The same goes for reading. I've never understood why, but then i've found so much pleasure in both activities it is hard to understand any other point-of-view. After reading Runicman's article, I couldn't help but identify with his desire to share the wonders of writing. I choose to write, teach, and share what i've read because i want others to experience the same pleasure in those activies as i do. Trying to inspire hundreds of students with writing and reading may seem niave, but something I'm willing to work for.
Landmark Essays Ch 8, 9, 11
On Berthoff's piece:
The first time I read this article I didn't understand a word. It took a second reading before I grasped any point Berthoff tried to make. I got lost amongst doubles like "consciousness of consciousness." I do like how Berthoff advocates a multimodal approach to teaching composition. I too believe that form's importance is underrated to academic institutions. We've been taught to focus on developing a voice not form. I also like how she ends with "composing is a process of meaning making." The only way to understand how meaning is made is to analyze the process by which we visually internalize, imagine, then produce.
On Hairston's piece:
I really do agree the prediction of change, but i don't agree with editing being the best way to teach students writing. Addressing the first, we always seem to be on the cusp of change. The problem is always the inability to predict whether the change will be positive or negative. While our education systems have seen many advances in teaching practices and tools, there are foundational parts that are crumbling. Now to my disagreement with Hairston's claim that the best way to teach writing is through editing. Composition is not just about the words and grammatical marks on a page. Editing does not help a writer create ideas, it only helps make them accessible to the reader.
On Reither's Piece:
This article seemed like an echo...I've heard it from all the other process people we've read. I did like the the point about teaching students inquiry strategies because it is really important for secondary education students to learn these before going to college. Many students do not understand how to research or evaluate sources. The internet (the convenient crutch as I like to call it) provides students with copious amounts of information, but they don't understand how to use the information.
The first time I read this article I didn't understand a word. It took a second reading before I grasped any point Berthoff tried to make. I got lost amongst doubles like "consciousness of consciousness." I do like how Berthoff advocates a multimodal approach to teaching composition. I too believe that form's importance is underrated to academic institutions. We've been taught to focus on developing a voice not form. I also like how she ends with "composing is a process of meaning making." The only way to understand how meaning is made is to analyze the process by which we visually internalize, imagine, then produce.
On Hairston's piece:
I really do agree the prediction of change, but i don't agree with editing being the best way to teach students writing. Addressing the first, we always seem to be on the cusp of change. The problem is always the inability to predict whether the change will be positive or negative. While our education systems have seen many advances in teaching practices and tools, there are foundational parts that are crumbling. Now to my disagreement with Hairston's claim that the best way to teach writing is through editing. Composition is not just about the words and grammatical marks on a page. Editing does not help a writer create ideas, it only helps make them accessible to the reader.
On Reither's Piece:
This article seemed like an echo...I've heard it from all the other process people we've read. I did like the the point about teaching students inquiry strategies because it is really important for secondary education students to learn these before going to college. Many students do not understand how to research or evaluate sources. The internet (the convenient crutch as I like to call it) provides students with copious amounts of information, but they don't understand how to use the information.
Landmark Essay's CH 10, 14, 17
On Berkenkotter's piece:
I think the author of this piece found a relatively good way to approach the study of someone's writing process. It is really wonderful that she was able to actually transcribe the process and break it down statistcally. I do agree with Josh's statement of there not being enough time allocated to the study. I also think that her observation about Mr. Murray making his biggest revisions when he turned his thoughts towards his audience. It shows the hypersentivity of the writer to mold his voice in a way that others can understand.
On Flynn's piece:
Really enjoyed this article. The day that we touched on this in class, I wanted to go more in-depth, but alas...there was no time. The included narratives were very helpful defining the line between male and female student writing. Introducing the texts Flynn describes the narratives saying "The narratives of the female students are stories of interaction, of connection, or of frustrated connection. The narratives of the make students are stories of achievement, of serparation, or of frustrated achievement." After reading this, I couldn't have agreed more. Thinking back to all the narratives (written or verbal) that i've heard from men and women, their focus or intended meaning would neatly fit in one of those boxes.
On Murray's piece:
I agree whole-heartedly with his thesis. Every experience a writer has colors experiences to follow. This knowledge and understand can really be seen in someone's writing. There are two quotes that I think sum up the entire article. Towards the end he writes, "We become what we write." This is imperative to any good writer. Living within the words you write gives them vibrancy no matter what genre you are writing in. Then at the end Murray says "That is the terrible, wonderful power of reading; the texts we create in our own minds while we read-or just after we read-become part of the life we believe we lived." Again this goes back to interalizing and making sense of our experiences. Everything we read becomes internalized and applied to the experiences we've had or stored to be applied to a later experience. All of these jumbled together makes us individual characters with specific traits that can be identified in our writing.
I think the author of this piece found a relatively good way to approach the study of someone's writing process. It is really wonderful that she was able to actually transcribe the process and break it down statistcally. I do agree with Josh's statement of there not being enough time allocated to the study. I also think that her observation about Mr. Murray making his biggest revisions when he turned his thoughts towards his audience. It shows the hypersentivity of the writer to mold his voice in a way that others can understand.
On Flynn's piece:
Really enjoyed this article. The day that we touched on this in class, I wanted to go more in-depth, but alas...there was no time. The included narratives were very helpful defining the line between male and female student writing. Introducing the texts Flynn describes the narratives saying "The narratives of the female students are stories of interaction, of connection, or of frustrated connection. The narratives of the make students are stories of achievement, of serparation, or of frustrated achievement." After reading this, I couldn't have agreed more. Thinking back to all the narratives (written or verbal) that i've heard from men and women, their focus or intended meaning would neatly fit in one of those boxes.
On Murray's piece:
I agree whole-heartedly with his thesis. Every experience a writer has colors experiences to follow. This knowledge and understand can really be seen in someone's writing. There are two quotes that I think sum up the entire article. Towards the end he writes, "We become what we write." This is imperative to any good writer. Living within the words you write gives them vibrancy no matter what genre you are writing in. Then at the end Murray says "That is the terrible, wonderful power of reading; the texts we create in our own minds while we read-or just after we read-become part of the life we believe we lived." Again this goes back to interalizing and making sense of our experiences. Everything we read becomes internalized and applied to the experiences we've had or stored to be applied to a later experience. All of these jumbled together makes us individual characters with specific traits that can be identified in our writing.
Problems with the Institution
Leaving class today the question Shipka posed replayed in my head like an unwanted Backstreet Boys song. I've thought, been taught, and read about the institutional problems concerning teaching composition today, but never analyzed. A student's process should not continually be ignored by the institution. Understanding and implementing the process that best fits the student seems the most logical way to produce efficiency.
In class today, many students including myself, expressed the want to "beat the system." I agree with Shipka in saying that something is wrong within the current structure if students are continually looking for ways to meet the requirements without "meeting" them. All the compostion teachers I've come across say that drafts and revision are the best way to write and teach writing. But I agree with Kasandra on this point. Just because I didn't physically write down my ideas, order them on paper in complete sentences, and do grammatical/structural editing (on a draft), does not make my writing any less valid. It just means I chose not to relate the institutional norm to my process.
So, if students beating the instituation has become the norm, then yes, a change needs to happen. But do teachers/professors have the time and resources to allow student to follow their own proccesses? In the public school arena no, maybe the change can start at the college level. To relate this to the English Comm/Tech department here at UMBC, ENGL 392 would be the perfect class to begin instituting change. I think the course should be required along with Engl 301 as the first classes required of a potential English major. Even though the class requires the traditional draft and revision (which could be modified), ENGL 392 provides an excellent setting and flexibility for students to identify the process which best suits them.
In class today, many students including myself, expressed the want to "beat the system." I agree with Shipka in saying that something is wrong within the current structure if students are continually looking for ways to meet the requirements without "meeting" them. All the compostion teachers I've come across say that drafts and revision are the best way to write and teach writing. But I agree with Kasandra on this point. Just because I didn't physically write down my ideas, order them on paper in complete sentences, and do grammatical/structural editing (on a draft), does not make my writing any less valid. It just means I chose not to relate the institutional norm to my process.
So, if students beating the instituation has become the norm, then yes, a change needs to happen. But do teachers/professors have the time and resources to allow student to follow their own proccesses? In the public school arena no, maybe the change can start at the college level. To relate this to the English Comm/Tech department here at UMBC, ENGL 392 would be the perfect class to begin instituting change. I think the course should be required along with Engl 301 as the first classes required of a potential English major. Even though the class requires the traditional draft and revision (which could be modified), ENGL 392 provides an excellent setting and flexibility for students to identify the process which best suits them.
Williams and I Should Be BFF's
After reading the Williams's article I finally understood how I want to teach composition when I become a practicing teacher. He says "if our goal as writing instructors is to teach critical thinking, then we need to be careful about privileding a singualr method of representing knowledge," and suggests "that building a pedogogy on a combination of verbal and visual rhetorics empowers students to make connections among disparate, yet related texts and encourages them to weave together multiple forms."
Looking back on my schooling, teachers tried to encorporate different types of media into the classroom, but never connected the texts to literacy. The idea that many more connections can be made by encorporating and becoming literate in different types of "rhetorics" would really change the dynamic of the classroom, but for the better. As college students, teachers, and professors, we've dedicated our lives to the pursuit of knowledge. If we choose to follow William's model, students would be given the opportunity to critically engage with different new medias as well as the "old forms." This will help them become knowledgable of past and present which will give them the power to combine the two and astound the world with something new.
If I had the opportunity to engage with other types of media in high school, I would. I understand that time and lack of resources become the biggest obstacles preventing the interweaving of medias in classrooms, but that is nothing new. There are ways to work with what you have or don't have. Restricting students to just one type of rhetorical structure is "perilous" because it is close-minded and short-sighted; two qualities no one wants to see or experience in another person. Qualities that can easily be replaced if we recognize the importance and possiblity of William's suggestion.
Looking back on my schooling, teachers tried to encorporate different types of media into the classroom, but never connected the texts to literacy. The idea that many more connections can be made by encorporating and becoming literate in different types of "rhetorics" would really change the dynamic of the classroom, but for the better. As college students, teachers, and professors, we've dedicated our lives to the pursuit of knowledge. If we choose to follow William's model, students would be given the opportunity to critically engage with different new medias as well as the "old forms." This will help them become knowledgable of past and present which will give them the power to combine the two and astound the world with something new.
If I had the opportunity to engage with other types of media in high school, I would. I understand that time and lack of resources become the biggest obstacles preventing the interweaving of medias in classrooms, but that is nothing new. There are ways to work with what you have or don't have. Restricting students to just one type of rhetorical structure is "perilous" because it is close-minded and short-sighted; two qualities no one wants to see or experience in another person. Qualities that can easily be replaced if we recognize the importance and possiblity of William's suggestion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
