You've got Mail

My favorite part so far of the Technology readings was Anson's 1999 futuristic depictions of fictional Jennifer. How many of his hypotheticals have become realities? As one with little time to watch TV, I get most of my news online from various sites depending on my current needs: weather, local news, politics, even tabloid celebrity wogwash. I like not having to wait until after a commercial to get the news that is deemed most pertinant. There is nothing more frustrating than hearing a reporter say, "Information relevant to life as we know it... right after this break." One click and I am there.

I really enjoyed Neuwith's correlation between design and writing and how similiar the process are: purpose, audience, needs, revisions are part of design and writing. Her lightbulb moment seemed to be when she felt that she had completed her assignment and her teacher made further suggestions, cementing the idea that the design in probably never complete, just like writing.

I have always liked the idea of interdisciplinary teaching, and technology seems to be an ideal way to do it. Sitting at the computer blogging has become second nature to me by now. It does not seem too far fetch to think that a computer class could teach students to design a web page AND keep a blog. Kids today are already so tech savvy that they may eventually not even need a separate computer course and it will simply be integrated into all classes.

As far as composition classes and technology, I can't see that they will simply become online courses in the future. I feel that the interpersonal bonds that are formed in many of those classes are the impetus for the majority of the improvements. These relationships, as discussed by Faigly and Anson, are not generally forged via distance education. Think about your favorite classes, odds are you connected with the teacher. Think about the excite you get when you get a letter-a REAL letter- verses opening up your email to have a gazzilion emails. I love technology- the ability to instantly answer a myriad of questions- but I would much rather get a letter anyday.

When I originally looked at the topic for this week, BASIC WRITING, I thought it would be about SKAs that are needed for writing and their surrounding theories. The idea of necessary SKAs (skills, knowledge and abilities) did come up, in all the articles, in all different ways. However, the first article by Mina Shaughnessy surprised me since was all about teacher remediation. I really liked her Four Teacher Stages of Basic Writing Teacher Development (312). As a culture I think we are quick to place blame anywhere but upon ourselves. I now know that when confronted with a class that doesn't seem to "be getting it" I will be most likely to put the onus on myself and look for changes in my curriculum, rather than blame the students for not trying. Being aware of this and having the ability to skip stages 1-3 will benefit myself, as well as my students tremendously.

My favorite quote from this article (and possibly anything else I have read) was from Leo Strauss (to a teacher), "Always assume that there is one silent student in your class who is by far superior to you in head and in heart" (VV 317). WOW! What a powerful statement.

I like Deborah Mutnick’s ideas about teaching basic writing students to be comfortable with language. She emphasizes this by her praise of Mary Soliday’s Enrichment Approach in which a specific BW course is designed to first “encourage students to use the unfamiliar language of the academy to describe and analyze familiar aspects of everyday language use and cultural experience” (GT 107). While this specifically addresses basic writing at the university level, it is easily transferable to other grade levels. The language of any discourse community is usually apparent to those who are in it. I think Mutnick would agree then, that the key is to make sure that students understand the different communities that they are in, and the languages that are utilized.

In my Linguistics class we were talking about how dynamic language is, and always has been. Specifically, though, how recent technologies have seemed to increased the speed at which language is changing. Our discussion circled around the idea of what "language" will be acceptable in our classrooms. Many of us agreed that texting terms would not be acceptable in formal papers, and this would be something to discuss with our classes. For Basic Writing classes a more in depth discussion about what is considered acceptable and "expected" language for papers would be invaluable, as well as examples.


Nancy Sommers's case study was also extremely interesting. I really liked her conclusion about teaching writing and the writing process as a means of discovery. This relates back to a lot of what we have read, especially critical thinking. I can completely understand the basic writer’s desire to correct for (syntactical) error as their method of revision; having “rules” to adhere to in a daunting situation can be comforting. As the experienced writers have figured out, it is leaving this comfort zone and going beyond that truly help shape a “good” paper. So how do we teach this? This seem to me to be the key to developing creative writers, who are not 5 paragraph junkies, who write and think as a means of learning. That is the long term goal, isn’t it?

Teaching is Power

When I decided to go back to school, my mother the guidance councilor questioned why English. She bemoaned (over and over and over) the grading of all the papers. My initial response was that you only have to grade what you assign, and I really love the freedom it enables you. The freedom to essential teach what you want- within the context of the classroom. I am ready to change the world... so I thought. This week's readings while strengthening this notion, has made me a bit afraid of a teacher's impact.

Last week Brufee through Trimbur wrote "How we teach is, is what we teach" (VV 464). This statement had a real impact on me, and it was only implying that education is not neutral. This weeks readings really drove home this notion on a much deeper level, indicating that what we teach can truly impact lives, more deeply than we may ever know. I love the idea of teaching students to think critically, (Berthoff and George) but how will topic choice affect them? Do I let them choose? Like Bizzell, in George, asks, "What is the legitimate authority of teachers, or any other orators?" (GT 108). I want to teach those shared values, that George discusses (GT 108), but how do we know if they are really all shared. I think they should be... but who am I?

Knowledge is Power

Just when I thought I was jaded enough to be realistic about how my first teaching experiences will be I read James Berlin's article Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class. Now, again, I have the feeling that I will be able to hand my students the world- as long as I can teach them to write.

I think everyone has had a teacher who made them feel like that (above). Just this week I had a teacher (yes college level, no not a professor) define a term, using the same term in addition to saying it was more than a different term that she had not defined, and had not planned on. When I asked her for an example of the undefined term in the definition she said that it wasn't important and we didn't need to know it. She got very flustered when I persisted, explaining my inability to fully comprehend the new term with out knowing the meaning of the words in its defenition, telling me she would tell me (only me) after class. I know there were others who wanted this level of comprehension as well. Ahhh the "[l]oveless, arrogant, hopeless, mistrustful, acritical (Shor (95) in Berlin 734) classroom.

How does this relate to writing and the readings?

"...a way of teaching is never innocent. Every pedagogy is imbricated in ideology, in a set of tacit assumptions about what is real, what is good, what is possible, and how power ought to be distributed" (Berlin 735).

The Link

I liked Emig's message about the connection between writing and learning. I never had to study for a test in HS, and it was a shock to me to have to learn how to for college (after my parents almost yanked me out for a ahhh...less then stellar first semester). I found that the method that worked best for me was rewriting my notes, and information from the texts. I would do it over and over again. Emig's exploration about enactive, iconic and symbolic learning (10) clarifies why this was effective for me. I love the concept of writng using the whole brain. Although, I am not certain where compostition comes into play with this article, and am looking forward to discussing it in class.

Semantics

I am finding myself surprised that I don't have a lot to say about the Flower and Hayes article. I thought the information was good, maybe even helpful, but not overwhelmingly new. As I read some of these articles, I keep thinking, "How did these get published? They are common sense ideas." I am also not convinced that the Cognitive Process Models: Planning, Translating and Reviewing (277) are as significantly different from Pre-writing, Writing and Re-writing as Flower and Hayes would like us to believe. Simply because early proponents of Pre-writing, writing and re-writing did not explicitly state that they are multi-fauceted, hierarchical and not necessarily linear, does not mean that this isn't the case. As the language for composition (and the study of composition) has developed, it seems to me that semantics has certainly made its way to the forefront by way of those with a desire to publish.

The 5-P Essay

Well, I believe it has happened… I have (begun) to question the strength of my attachment to the 5- paragraph essay. Reading about the process of writing, and the process of teaching (the process of) writing has begun to take its grip on my beliefs and turn them into questions of my beliefs. I feel like I have crossed over into the “dark side,” only to realize it is the beginning of enlightenment.

I want my (future) students to be able to love writing. I want them to realize that regardless of their style or their methods that what matters is the end product, yet realize that their style and methods are part of the process of writing. I really like reading Tobin’s struggle to find the happy median between completely structured writing and completely unstructured writing. I am idealistic that I can give students the world in an English class, yet realistic enough to realize that this giving must conform to, and meet, several strict criteria set by those not necessarily in tune to my desires or needs as a teacher. Tobin’s median seems a way to be able to merge both my desires as well as most administrative demands. I must also add, that I am in complete agree with him when he states that teaching the 5 –paragraph essay is still a necessity, if only as a means to complete essay exams (cough cough ---PSSA’s).

The day the writing died :(

Well I guess it has already happened; my son doesn't like writing any more. I thought I could take advantage of the 2 hour delay (that I blame Todd, Vickie and Amy for) and make my own little case study of the kids. When I figured they had had enough video game time I called them both down and asked them to write a story. My son groaned, my daughter beamed. "But I am writing one is school about a boy who finds a dog..." So I told him he could write about whatever he wanted to, anything...ANYTHING! He could pick the paper, the PEN, the style, the topic... nope nothing got him interested. Sports, Pokemon (I think we were so against it, he had no choice but to like it), our toaster oven fire (he was our hero)...NOTHING. With in minutes my daughter told us a whole story and set out to "write" it. It is called The Vampire Who Eats Everybody ( who knows where she gets these things):

(See her name at the top-A_B_B_Y!) She proudly "read" her story, different from her original one she told, but hey that is part of the process...right? I praised her, made a huge deal, for her benefit but also as a way to try to entice my son to write ANYTHING. Nothing :( Wouldn't do it. My boy who loved writing last year: unstructured kid writing... wouldn't write a sentance, not a word after just half a year of this new reading/ writing program. My heart broke. I know I will make a big deal out of whatever writing he brings home, but it seems his enthusiasm is already lost.

Devil's Advocate

Hartwell

After finishing this weeks readings I find myself playing Devil's Advocate again! Hartwell ascertains (with lots of research to support his ideas) that formally teaching formal grammar is not necessary, and correlates it to a pool player mastering physics before even picking up a cue (216). Certainly a ridiculous concept, however, there is a time and a place to add to one's knowledge once the basics have been established. It isn't absurd to think that a study in physics, say: action/reaction, angles and speed, could have a positive affect on a decent pool player. I know I have used my knowledge of angles to hasten my game. While I don't believe that kindergarten is the place for formal grammar lessons, I do believe that it should be sprinkled throughout the curriculum. Hartwell uses possessives as an example, saying that students inherently know "Abby's duck." Perhaps verbally this is true, but students do not inherently know that there needs to be an apostrophe, and where to put it. My son's second grade class just finished a section on possession rules, and not once did I find it unnecessary. As I believe there is a place for the 5-paragraph essay, I believe there is a place for formal grammar education. With that said, I also do not think that these are the only ways to teach or write, but I do believe that they are an integral part of learning to write, and while they may have no appreciable merits, they are important.

North -$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




As an English major I would like to express my shock regarding the rise in interest in Composition due to the $ it generated for universities. However, as a former business student/ employee, I can honestly say that I am not surprised at all, only glad that it did not take another 60 yrs to happen. The only thing that is sad, and yet again not surprising, is the scramble for power over weighed the notion of authentic research, leaving a lot to still be realized.


Britton

WOW! Did he cover an immense amount of info in 22 pages! I really enjoyed his paper. Towards the end he writes about what beginner writers should know. As he systematically addresses them, he implies (or sometimes blatantly states) that many of these things are known at such an early age- almost innately. As I have seen from my son's classes (yes, I have noticed I have been writing my kids a lot, but they are at the ages a lot of this info is referencing-4 and 8) that they all really enjoy writing, even in kindergarten, when many of them only had doodles representing words. Now as confident writers they are learning the "rules", and they all still really love writing. I believe somewhere down the road this love of writing (for most) disappears, and I can help but thinking that there is a flaw in our system somewhere.

A Limerick--- for Mary

Limerick for Writers

We’re limerick writers of wonder With humor we pen without blunder. When we send a zinger, Each joke seems to linger, With flashes of lightning and thunder. Our audience just sits and waits To hear how each line berates. We’re sure to malign The next guy in line, The one that we just love to hate. Our game plan should hold no surprise. A verse form that just satisfies. We slam-dunk our rhyming With impeccable timing Then wait to claim our first prize. So here’s to each limerick we write. Sending it up like a kite. It dips and it swerves As we gather our nerves To watch it soar to new heights. By Raynette Eitel

In her comment Marry said she hasn't heard a limerick in a long time. I found this one... the first clean one I found... and loved it as a commentary on our readings this week.

Readings: Order counts!

Wow, do I wish I would have done our readings in the order they were on the Syllabus! "A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition" in the Bedford Bibliography gave such a great and comprehensive overview, including Kinneavy's importance and motivation. I know this would have not made me like his paper any better, I really do not like when writers miss their own stated aims (especially in a paper about aims), however it certainly brought a much brighter light to the historical aspects that he was trying to emphasize. The changes of rhetoric and composition over time, seem to follow many of the same "evolutionary" changes in other areas of pedagogy. What will be interesting to follow will be the how dynamic changes in rhetoric and composition will be with the huge technological boom that has just occurred. It seems that these areas will receive the greatest impact due to the availability of email, texting and related "writing" technologies. People of all ages are spending more and more time writing and reading. Even though they are not composing compositions, there is sure to be an impact, whether positive or negative on composition.

Contemporary Composition

James A. Berlin's paper, "Contemporary Composition:The Major Pedagogical Theories", was a complete change from Kinneavy's confounding one. It was refreshing to read Berlin's systematic approach to explaining and exploring the four different groups of theories that he lays out. I also enjoyed that he lay his agenda, promoting the New Rhetorician approach to teaching writing, right out in his introduction. Even with this agenda clearly stated, Berlin proceeded to fully divulge into the other three groups as thoroughly as he did the New Rhetoricians.

As one who has little to no background information about the history of composition (A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition is next on my reading list), I found his information extremely informative, as well as interesting and pertinent. What really made the most impact with me was his very last line about teachers knowing which approach they are taking to writing , AND being able to justify- to themselves as well as their students- why they had made that specific choice. This is certainly something I will reflect on when it is my time to teach.

Kinneavy's Aim

James L. Kinneavy’s paper, “The Basic Aims of Discourse” proved to be a let down. In his introduction, he states that his aim is to give consideration to other aims of discourse (other than expository writing). In actuality, he espouses his own theories and pushes his agenda: making composition the “foundation stone” of liberal arts programs (Kinneavy 127-140).

Instead of simply stating and exploring the “other” aims of discourse, Kinneavy runs through a litany of scholars, their histories, and conclusions regarding their own scrutinizations of language. He confounds me more by putting this information into a confusing chart, that perhaps in a moment of clarity realizes the involvedness of his chart, and proceeds to fully explain each and every aspect of it, thereby eliminating the need for the chart all together.

What Kinneavy fails to do is emphatically make his point as to which of the four aims of discourse he finds to be the most important. In his conclusion the four become clear, but only through his seemingly out-of-nowhere rant about how programs fail when they fail to fully integrate all four aims. While not enjoying most of this paper, I did find it hard to disagree with the breakdown of the aims of discourse, but also felt that they are a bit limiting and not quite open enough to include possible future areas.

Kinneavy also draws many parallels to different areas of science and then proceeds to claim, “Scientific discourse is generally different in its logic, its level of probability, from other aims of discourse” (138). Thus disavowing all the connections he, himself, had drawn.

From reading the paper is it easy to ascertain that Kinneavy is certain well studied and well versed in his chosen topic, therefore it came as a surprise that his discourse diverged so greatly from his stated aim, but like he wrote, “To determine the aim by the authors intent is to run the risk of ‘intentionally fallacy’”.

Citation:
Kinneavy, James. "The Basic Aims of Discourse." Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003.

Reason for writing

As I have lost my voice this weekend- due to a nasty cold- I keep hearing Julie's question echoing in my head... "What reasons do we have for writing?"

Quite frankly pen and paper (or in this case keyboard and screen) are the only "voice" I have right now. Writing (although not compositions), has become my main means of communicating. The only one having a hard time is my 4yr old, who can't read more than 3 letter words, and even that is too much sometimes. To her I whisper... and she whispers back.

So from me a big CHEERS to writing!

I did it!

Here's hoping this worked! My first time blogging- unless myspace counts. Here's to Engl 507 bringing me a bit more technological.