Kinneavy

The diagrams in this essay seemed useful although I don’t think I really understand them (in general, not with just this essay). I suppose it is showing the relationship among words. His initial comment that we may need to further distinguish between expository and creative writing. I am interested in the distinction but more interested in their similarities. The rest of the essay my interest was not sustained so for me the question was not answered. My interest perked up again at the end when he writes, “…the restriction of composition to expository writing and the reading of literary texts has had two equally dangerous consequences. First, the neglect of expressionism, as a reaction to progressive education, has stifled self-expression in the student and partially, at least, is a cause of the unorthodox and extreme forms of deviant self-expression now indulged in by college students on many campuses today.” This made me check the date of publication and it did not surprise me that it was 1969.

corbett

“Persuasion is what rhetoric is all about.” Corbett tells us. He does a fine job of introducing, giving the example of advertisements (modern), followed by the example from the Iliad (classical). He then breaks rhetoric into its five classical parts and concludes with how classical rhetoric is relevant today. This format is quite strategic and by the end I did feel a bit slaughtered, so I suppose he was successful. Like a general in battle. I was drawn in by the advertisement and Iliad. I was convinced of this viewpoint of rhetoric being the mastery of language in order to master your audience.

However, I’m not sure I want to master my audience in the way that he describes and models. It is true that in our daily activities and interactions we formally and informally want to persuade others to an idea. It is true that many professions (politicians, lawyers etc.) require a high level of rhetorical skill. But I was still left with an uneasy feeling after reading this. While his writing engaged me, I felt I was being manipulated as the audience. I have been around men (women too but mostly men) who will talk and talk in circles and there are fallacies in what they are saying, and at some points they are not really saying anything. They will do things like answer a question with a question. Question: “What is the price of beans in China?” Response: “Exactly. What is the price of beans in China.” This writing left me with a similar sensation. His use of advertisement as an example of rhetorical skills, emphasizes that the goal is to not necessarily get one to think, but to grab a person’s interest and persuade them to the benefit of the writer/speaker. If rhetoric is persuasion then I agree with him that advertisers are some of the most skilled rhetoricians (2). But I don’t want to be like an advertiser.

This introduction exemplifies how the textbook is geared more towards a business minded audience. Selling an object, selling our thoughts, selling an idea. I don’t want to sell. This introduction also focuses on product not the process of writing which I think is really what it unsettles me so much. He defends formula saying that it may inhibit creativity, but it isn’t guaranteed to hurt everybody’s creativity. Um. Not too strong of a counterargument. And it makes me shudder that he calls rhetoric an “art.” You can teach someone, step one, step two, step three etc. They can master these steps, but that doesn’t mean they are creating. That doesn’t mean they understand what or why they are doing what they do. For example, math. As I child I was good at math—supposedly. Because I could imitate the steps the teacher took. As soon as I stopped doing it, I forget how because I never understand why…it wasn’t until I was an adult that I truly began to understand fractions, the relationship between decimals, fractions and percentages, the importance of place value, the genius of ZERO. I feel like writing is similar. You can teach it through imitation, by giving it in five easy steps. Some students will master it. It will work for some. Some will eventually figure out what’s going on. SOME. But I’m saying honestly, when I finally had these math breakthroughs and truly understood what I was doing…then math became beautiful to me. But I’m a nerd like that.
It could be argued that those formulas helped set me up for later discovery, but the reason that later discovery occurred was because I had to eventually teach math. And because I was giving people their wrong change back and because I didn’t know how to calculate 10 % of whatever until my brother told me. But what if I had no brother? What if I didn’t teach?

I’m not saying that everything about classical rhetoric is a bunch of crap. But I am trying to explain the effect Corbett’s writing had on me because presumably he is writing in a manner that he believes is an example of good rhetoric. If it is, then I am hesitant to participate.

Two interesting points: that the need for articulate speakers and writers increases with social upheaval. This I like. This I can see. This gives me historical context and a better understanding of the purpose that rhetoric serves (inform, persuade, motivate). The second interesting point he makes is that words make us human so we should master them. My question is, what does mastery mean?

He did a good job of showing that he thinks rhetoric = persuasion. However, I think this classical understanding of rhetoric is so narrow….so based on one culture/group’s philosophy, aesthetic concepts, purpose that I don’t see how it can be relevant to all students. It isn’t that we don’t all use persuasion, but our purposes in doing it, our ways in doing it, what we get out of it is different.

(832)

connors

What is the difference between the traditional modes of discourse and the new classifications for writing that he mentions (recording, reporting, persuasive, literary etc.)? He says that these are empirically based and that they focus on the writer’s purpose, rather than the product. They seem to just be more classifications, although they are more specific. I’m not sure how I feel about any of these classifications. I agree that the writer’s purpose is important, however it seems like the traditional modes of writing were based on that. Persuasion = “to influence the will”, Expository = to inform the understanding (445). What is lacking from these categories is connection to a larger purpose, context. You write with purpose when you have a real audience. We’ve already talked about this is class. I think. Writing for the instructor, which is what most students do, is not having a real audience. I mean I’m real, but outside of the classroom, I don’t have much impact or make a mark on their lives.

I felt that Connors does a nice job of laying out what the traditional modes are but I was not convinced that anything has changed. He claims that the modes and their powers in the classroom have weakened. There has been a switch to more process oriented writing but still, a lot of the approaches and strategies from the 19th century are still in use today. When I was teaching elementary school, there was a program called “Step Into Writing.” The title itself is already a bad sign, almost as bad as a title with the “Practical” in it. If it says practical it’s bound not to be. Just like if a student writes “obviously…” it isn’t obvious at all. What support do I have to back this statement up? Just think about the effect starting a statement with “Practical” has on you. It’s something mothers say, “It’s not practical,” at least my mother. And because it’s not practical, that’s why you should do it.

“STEP INTO WRITING” used a technique with red green and yellow. Each paragraph started with red (I think.) The thesis. STOP. Then yellow was the supporting and green the details (green as in GO! GO! GO! With the details!) This is a very inaccurate explanation of the program. But it’s true about the colors and it’s true that the paragraph was seen as a microcosm of the essay. You take the structure of your paragraph, then you stretch it out to an essay. This is one example of where I read the theory and the classifications and I thought, “ah yes, I’ve seen this in action.”

Because this article was published in 1981, I’m wondering if at that time textbooks were drastically different from what they are today. When Connors writes, “…the only teachers still making real classroom use of the modes are those out of touch with current theory.” (453) Well, there are a lot of teachers, administrators, textbook writers out of touch with the current theory then. This statement made me think, either education was drastically different in the ‘80s (which given the rate of spending and how problems in education are problems that people have been talking about since, like, foreeeeveeer.) or that Connors himself might be out of touch with what is going on in classrooms. I know I’ve taught, am teaching right now based on THE MODES. I tried teaching the red light, yellow light green light way of writing. I didn’t like it a whole lot but I tried it. Why did I try it? Because that’s what the text book told me to do. I thought maybe that person knew something about writing that I didn’t. I love to write, I like to write, I know how I write. Perhaps it’s like thinking, because thinking is interlinked with writing. I can’t teach anybody else how to think. I can’t give a precise process for thinking, only my process, which is similar to other’s but not exactly the same. In the same way, I think people have similar writing processes but none are exactly the same.

I liked how he mentioned the pre-Civil War classifications: letters, treatises, essays, biographies, fictions. This helped to shed more light on what is deemed worthy writing is directly tied to who is writing and under what economic circumstances.

Last week I asked my students what they were interested in reading. I was surprised by how many said “true events, true stories.” Most said they do not write much outside of class. Most people I know don’t write much outside of school. But if writing helps to stimulate and develop thought….not that you can’t think if you don’t write…All this talk on writing is related to so many other issues. Are we a reading nation? If we are a reading nation then we’re probably more likely to be a writing nation. Do we want a country of readers and writers? Well, if I was in charge of my own little world…people could do whatever the hell they love doing and are good at…but yes, they should be able to read critically…and write with purpose…and have number sense. Why? Because these are tools, means to communicate, to understand, to discover, and to not let anyone take advantage of you a.k.a empowerment. To tie it back into the reading, Connors says that as the focus switched to writing with purpose, the four traditional modes became minor, unnecessary. There was not much need to debate because there was simply not much use for them. They weren’t PRACTICAL. So far, much of what writing is (in the classroom) is what was. Do students need what was? Some of it they do, and some of it we need to let fall away like old dry skin.

berlin

After reading this essay, the main idea I’m left with is that writing and instruction of writing at the University level was shaped by scientific ways of thinking. Writing was seen as being formulaic.

As I write this, and I know I’m supposed to stay on topic but I’m thinking on how my 101 students write response papers and I say “Don’t summarize. Refer to the text but don’t summarize.” Who wants to read 20 summaries of the same essay? But it is difficult to just sit down and react right off the bat. I think we naturally summarize what we’ve read. Then we comment on why certain areas impacted us.

I return to my non-summary. I think this emphasis on form, and structure, grammar, and assumption that the writer already knows what he wants to say, is very at odds with creative writing. Several authors have already spoken on the separation between literature programs and composition programs. In this essay, Berlin compares the two, saying literature programs remained open to new ways of thinking, while composition programs stayed stuck in ideas from the 18th century. How dull. How practically dull. I think this separation partly arises simply from approaching writing differently, viewing words and their function differently….although creative writing programs have not been around for too long but perhaps…I’m confused now. If the people who studied literature love words, language constructions, have poetic sensiblities then why approach writing in the way that they do? The men mentioned in the essay had no training in teaching writing but I imagine they liked writing in some way. Maybe they themselves did not write.

Berlin also mentions that many of the textbooks during this time had the word “practical” in the title, which is indicative of the purpose they were to serve. So many textbooks and “how to” books have that word in it, “practical” that I think I’d forgotten what it meant. Instead of meaning “useful” it means “boring.” Perhaps this one word, then is indicative of what was occurring with the textbooks.

Really, what I appreciated about this reading was that it shows the impact of politics and economics on education. This idea isn’t new but it always draws my attention how an object, like a textbook, can be so symbolic of the times, an archeological study of the ages.

Oh and another point he made about scientific truth replacing the pursuit of spiritual truth…given that history repeats itself, the pendulum swings back and forth etc. etc. will we eventually be in search of spiritual truth in education? I don’t think it would be painted in the same terms but I have read talk on a return to the spiritual to community because so many people in the United States suffer from depression, isolation, life among strangers. Just like politics and economics, the emotional and psychological state of the community / nation (it could be looked at any level) also shapes how writing is taught.

Juzwik & Yancey

This article provided a nice overview of recent research. The main trends are that research on multilingual writing and the impact of context on writing has increased. I was also surprised that there is not more research on technology but I guess we’re in the middle of that whole, movement right now. We’ve only had a few classes so far but this focus on technology plus teaching 101 students is starting to open my eyes to the fast pace that technology is moving. I knew this before but with my friends and family most of us have grown up not having a cell phone and typing on big bulky Apple II E’s. Now I’m seeing my friends’ kids and my students who’ve never known a world without ipods etc. I know this has all been said already but I mention it because I’m starting to get it.

But back to the article. It helped to see how research trends change according to what is going on in society and in other academic fields. This ties into theory, which follows and shapes those same trends. I don’t have much else to say on this article so I’ll move on.

The Yancey article, I appreciated how she modeled what she was telling everybody to do. By having the quotes and diagrams there I felt like I had more to play with. If my mind got bored reading the text then I let it wander over to the visual, then wander back to the text. Arranging a text and presentation like that seems like it would require a lot of work. A lot of planning. Although if it’s a topic you love then I guess it would be well worth it.

She makes a good point that much of what we learn about writing we don’t learn in school. I didn’t gain my love of writing from school. Well maybe a little but in all honesty I don’t remember much writing instruction. That’s a lie. In fifth grade every week we had to write a story and the teacher picked out the best stories to read out loud. Ah thank you Mrs. Henderson. Fifth grade was a good year. So that worked for me because I had an audience of 30 kids.

The idea that English departments and the number of majors is shrinking was interesting. I wanted more detail on that. More proof. Is it true? I know at UNLV I’ve heard people say that. The question is why? It seems like there are an infinite number of factors. I know why I wasn’t an English major. It was too traditional and I was too undecided about what I wanted to do with my life. Is there a drop in the arts overall? I’m very curious about this.

So she says composition has evolved in that we focus on the process and not the product but that the one major aspect that hasn’t changed is the students are only writing for the instructor. Her proposal for change is based on wanting to change this. I think that is an important shift. Today I read out loud excerpts from student work and the students were much more engaged than I think if we’d picked apart something I wrote, or something from the textbook. Not that we shouldn’t read other work too but what most struck me is that the writers (I was observing them a little) were much more conscious of their work. They had to be because we all had a copy and we all were sitting there together looking at it, talking out loud about it. Always a little scary but it forces us to get out of our own heads and think about our audience.

The practical suggestion she gives to communicate in different modalities (power point, poster, presentation, conventional writing) is something that I’m going to experiment with. Probably on a lower scale, more manageable. I love hearing new ideas but sometimes I become overwhelmed with using them and then I get mad because they don’t work out perfectly. Teaching is experimentation though. That’s part of the pain and part of the pleasure.

Suresh Canagarajah Reading

When I first started reading this I thought “oh here we go, a call for multilingualism that’ll end up telling us how we’re all unique and equal and isn’t that great.” And I’m not saying that I’m anti-any language but standard English because I’d be a fool if I did since that would mean knocking down everyone who I love and care for (including myself). But I find that some of these discussions are superficial. Let’s all eat tacos and lumpia and hold hands! I know how to say good morning in eight different languages! Etc. I do like tacos and lumpia though. Sometimes when I read these essays I think “well, duh.” I know that’s rude but it’s what goes through my head. Not that I thought what he wrote was worthless I just felt I’d read / lived it enough that I didn’t need to read more about it.

I was interested in knowing how / if he would give some practical applications for integrating diverse Englishes into the academic world and I felt he succeeded in doing this with his examples of writing in Sri Lanka (not just academic) and writers like Hooks and Smitherman.

Another initial question running through my mind was, “Why should we want to broaden the definition of academic English?” Put another way, “Who is my audience when I use academic English? Are they people I’d want to speak to in a more intimate manner?” because to me these other ways, styles of speaking English are connected very much to who I’m speaking to. I was skeptical in the first few pages.

On page 596 he writes that strategies like allowing what he calls WE only in non-serious, informal writing sent the message that, “…local Englishes should have only a restricted place in one’s repertoire.” The reverse is true too, however, Standard English also has a restricted place, I would say an even more restricted place. This comment has no connection to what I wrote before. Sorry.

His distinction between black English and Chicano English versus the WE’s was interesting. It shows how time affects value, interpretation, interpretations. From what I understand, since these styles of English have been around longer they are more legit, more accepted although still not deemed worthy of high speech.

He really got my attention on page 599. I thought his analogy to speech events being games and games requiring rules was brilliant. It helped me to better understand where he was coming from. You understand the game, even if you don’t like it, so that you can change and impact it in a way that is lasting and effective. So he does want to get beyond the superficial after all! I cheered.

I cheered too (only in my head though) when he talked about how complicated it is to truly bring in different languages and mix them together in a meaningful manner but that its important to do if minority students in academia (or anybody) want to change it and shape it in a manner that is true to who they are. Cheesy I know but I believe it’s crucial. It is very challenging to be in an environment where you feel like you don’t know who you are because what and who you are familiar with and who you identify with are not around. Do you just slip in with what’s already going on? Of course not. You make your place. Which means you know the game, you know what you want, you educate yourself and you be the best. Go team.

One final comment because there’s three more articles. I appreciated his comment at the end that he has trained himself to censor his speech and that what he proposes (meshing codes) is something that he is learning to do too. I appreciated the honesty because we can all tell each other what to do but can we admit we don’t know what the hell we’re doing either?

week.1

The common topic covered by this weeks readings, is the history of composition in the United States. 

The Hill article is a text from 1879 composed by an educator at Harvard, who was one of the first to push forward the notion of composition & rhetoric being its own department.  In the text he stresses the importance of being a strong writer as well as deconstructing the myths that 1) writing is easy and 2) imperfections are acceptable when it comes to the written word. 

The Brereton piece looks at composition in relation to the development of other academic fields.  He situates the changes within a broadening understanding of higher education.  He says that it began as a highly elite institution, then gradually opened up to more people, particularly after the Civil War.  He attributes composition’s low status to its initial categorization as art instead of science.  Because universities at the beginning of the 20^th century were beginning to emphasize research, fields that didn’t conduct research had lower status.  The instructors were lowly graduate students or novice academics at the beginning of their careers.  Writing was thought to be a simple process to be practiced and imitated.  As peoples’ understanding of the relationships between language, thought, and context changed, so too did their understanding of writing.  With new ideas on language and thought developing, research on writing began to become more popular and more important.    

The Reynolds piece covers the history of rhetoric and composition studies beginning from its Greek origins to the present.  The Greek focus was on oral communication.  The written word was merely the “dressing” of ideas.  Structure and imitation were emphasized.  During Medieval and Renaissance times, composition continued to be situated within an elite educational system that emphasized criticism, style and delivery.  This pattern of viewing composition as mere decoration for ideas continued on until the early 20^th century.  The developing idea at this time was that the text itself had meaning which it tried to communicate.  Educators and academics began looking for connections among disciplines, specifically linguistics and the social sciences.  During the 1960s “experts” looked to writing as a means of self-expression.  In the 1970s experts began to wonder at the diversity of languages and their impact and interaction with composition programs.  A recognition of the impact of individual background on the development and interpretation of written text came into focus.   Since the 1980s composition and rhetoric has gained more status as a legitimate field of study.  Rather than just looking at language as words, academics are looking at the relationship of words to society, community, and psychology.  Emphasis on diversity is still popular, as well as challenging traditional notions of types of writing, methods to writing, and purposes in writing. 

Finally, Nystrand et al. al examine the developing theories behind composition which they identify as moving from an emphasis on the text, to an emphasis on the individual and finally an emphasis on the social.  They point to the 1970s as a key point when composition veered away from the traditional and began to broaden its understanding of writing, and look at writing as a social, linguistic and psychological process.  The writers draw parallels between composition studies and developments in other fields, particularly linguistics which began to emphasize language as a process, and mode of interaction and creation of knowledge, rather than simply a system of symbols.

Hill’s piece was striking because of its time period and the fact that he is repeating the same woes that we continue spouting today: low status of composition courses, students who are unprepared for university courses, overworked teachers at the high school level. One difference I did note is that today, while many people dislike writing and may feel unprepared, most would acknowledge the importance of being a strong writer.  In comparison, Hill bemoans the general feeling that writing is easy to do and that spelling and grammatical errors are acceptable as long as the ideas are sound.  He makes a call for mastering the mother tongue which made me wonder what he would say if he were alive today, when research on bilingualism and language acquisition also find that the mother tongue should be developed first….the  mother tongue, however, not always being English.  Of course in his day and age there were diverse languages which he does not acknowledge and perhaps is revealing of an elitist attitude in regards to the demographics of students attending Harvard.  This text was most intriguing because of when it was written and because of the influence that Hill had on the composition program at Harvard, and subsequently Harvard’s impact on other educational institutes at the university and high school level. 

The Brereton writing added another dimension to Hill’s essay because he analyzes the success and eventually petering out of the Harvard writing program.  He attributes its eventual end to the fact that there was no research or theory developed, but rather a series of strong, dedicated and talented individuals who pushed the program along.  As a result of a lack of research and theory, once those individuals were gone, the program disappeared.  This chain of events reminded me of an article I read on big businesses that rode strong on the backs of powerful individuals but failed to develop ideas and strategies as a whole.  The effect was the same: once the individuals left, the businesses fell apart.  This strategy of developing ideas in many instead of relying on a few individuals, points to one reason why developing strong writing programs is important.  By fostering a wider understanding of writing, a community’s ability to sustain, represent and develop ideas in the written realm is always vibrant and alive. 

One point that he makes which I disagree with is that writing was originally seen as an art not a science.  Consequently, it was relegated to being a required course that merely needed to be taught, rather than a field of study to be explored and expanded upon.  I would say that writing was viewed as a skill, not an art because skills are taught, imitated and are finite.  You have a skill and either you are good at it or not.  In contrast art cannot be taught.  It can be improved upon, one can have mentors but there is no limit to one’s development and the boundaries that define it are always being pushed. 

Nystrand et al. highlight the 1970s as a pivotal moment in the United States when writing programs became more innovative and also began to consider the perspectives of nontraditional students.  While they focus more on parallel developments in other fields of study, it is no coincidence that historically, socially and politically the United States and the world were seeing huge upheavals and change.  In addition, the explosion of pride in cultural and community background also impacted the changes that were happening in composition.  The writers of this text have a very academic perspective. What bothered me is that they attributed much of the change in attitudes of writing to researchers.  However, the experiences, actions, and ideas of the students had just as much of an impact.  Academics had no choice but to begin to recognize the changing population that began entering the college and university systems in larger numbers.  As stated by one of my classmates, trends in education are usually behind societal trends.  Research and publications formalize and authenticate for academia, changes that have often already occurred.  This is not to say that academic research is redundant and states the obvious.  Research and theory is necessary, as seen at Harvard, in order to sustain and have continuous growth in educational programs.  My main critique is that researchers recognize that they alone are not making changes in peoples’ understanding of writing.

Two points from this article that I would be interested in learning more about are 1) the literacy crisis of the 1970s and 2) the increased accessibility of cheap paperback books.  

Reynolds et al. was a convenient perusal of history in regards to composition.  In seeing the strongly western European roots of the educational system I am curious as to other modes of teaching writing.  The history of writing would also be interesting to compare different countries, regions and time periods. Has writing always been an arena for the “highly educated?”  When did writing begin to take an artistic form?  The early understandings of composition seem to me to be very dull and tedious because they were mostly processes of well defined steps.  Writing is still taught this way in many schools (The five paragraph essay is ever popular and programs such as “Step into Writing” propose to teach writing in several easy and well defined steps.)  I’m not clear on who exactly wants to read this sort of writing.  Such step by step writing produces essays that are essentially identical and boring.  The period from the 1970s on is what grabs my attention because I feel it is most relevant to the students I’m teaching and to my understanding of the current state of education, which is increasingly recognizing the diversity of the students and community at large.