4.28

Berlin & Hairston
I read Berlin’s essay first and it was heavy. I felt he had a political agenda, probably because he said so. Hairston’s essay in response to his, and other left wing political extremists made me more interested in Berlin’s. Her reaction seemed to be that, “They’re taking over!” which is not what I got out of Berlin’s reading, but then again, I was not reading this in the context of the early 90’s when it seems that there was a lot of arguments going on about “multiculturalism.”

What I took from Berlin is that there are three main ideologies underlying composition studies. The first is cognitive rhetoric which basis itself on scientific thinking, which he says serves as a cover for ideology since scientific thinking is supposed to be objective. This type of rhetoric is focused on what goes on in the brain. The second type is expressionistic rhetoric, which focuses on individual expression. The third type of rhetoric is social-epistemic, which I understood to be a constant questioning of what we believe and why we believe it. He writes, “…the point of this classroom is that the liberated consciousness of students is the only educational objective worth considering…” I didn’t take this to mean dogma over writing. I took it to mean that as students learn to write, they also learn to think for themselves.

I did not get from his essay that because education is never neutral we should just be overtly political, which is what it seems like Hairston is saying. Berlin is correct when he says that, “A rhetoric cannot escape the ideological question…” It seems to me that Hairston takes this awareness that the classroom is always reinforcing some type of political ideology as a threat.

I agree with her on the following points: 1) (p. 704) that it is easy for instructors of freshmen English to focus on their own interests, because they are not as experienced in their field, and also because of the low status of the course, it is not as monitored. However, this doesn’t just apply to politics. Some people might revert to teaching poetry or showing movies. Why? Because it’s easier, most people would rather teach what they’re interested in and the textbook is not exactly the spiciest of readings. I also agree that, “…students’ own writing must be the center of the course.” We can talk all the theory we want, but if the students’ experiences, opinions and needs aren’t taken into account then how do we know the theory is working?

Even though I agree with her on a lot of points her essay still bothered me. At one point she asks whether people ask students what they want to learn (p. 703), implying that instructors with political agendas are bulldozing students into thinking a certain way. I bring this up because I felt that she was demeaning towards students when she described them as being, “…largely unsophisticated…” Yes, students are young, but they are also smart and they are not blank slates. They are not going to simply go along with what the instructor says. Yes, they might fall into exciting, political sounding rhetoric, yes they are probably more impressionable than a forty year old professor, but they are also more willing to challenge and test the world around them and experience life for themselves.

Anyways. Another point I agree on is that we should focus on what our area of expertise is. I also partly agree that, “The real political truth about classrooms is that the teacher has all the power…” (707). I wouldn’t say the teacher has all the power but the teacher is the one who plans the assignments and gives the grades. Most of us are used to that and wouldn’t know what to do if it were set up another way. Agendas and grades are a part of formalized, structured education. Again I agreed with a lot of what she had to say.

My main disagreement was with her freaking out that the far left is taking over and manipulating English 101 students. I also felt that her proposals for a “culturally inclusive curriculum” were a bit kumbaya-ish. Like if we just all share our stories and talk, that’s how we’ll learn. For me, it’s not a matter of separating politics from the classroom; it’s about being conscious of it. Classrooms are not neutral places. If we all hold hands and talk about our struggles it’s still not going to be a neutral place. We shouldn’t force our views on students; we should focus on writing; we should challenge them and strive for a learning environment that is open. At the same time, it’s o.k. if they’re uncomfortable sometimes, or we ask that they think about politics and power struggles and that they realize that instructors have their own ideologies which impact instruction.

Ira Shor
The best part of Shor’s essay was her title and her opening paragraph. The Monday Mornings. Cranking it back up. For the most part I wondered how she knew she was getting the results she claimed. How did she know she was freeing her students? My reaction to her writing stemmed a lot from having read J. Smith’s essay earlier. I wasn’t convinced that she got the results she claimed because she never gave accounts from the students. She explained the activities but where was the proof of long term impact on student thinking? I liked her theme of work, not because it dealt with work but because all the assignments built upon each other. Sometimes I feel like the readings we have in English 101 and the essays we write have no relevance to anything outside of the class or even much relevance between them. Shor used some interesting teaching strategies, that supported student centered learning and communication but I wanted to hear more of their feedback. I think she does what other writers caution and rail against, which is letting her personal ideology guide the direction of the class.

Freire
I like Freire’s work and so do other people because they are always referencing him. What makes his work so powerful is that it is specific to a time, place, people and political situation. While some of his ideas are universal, such as the idea of phonemic awareness, I think that we have to place them into the context in which they belong. The biggest lesson for me, from his work, is that you have to teach directly based on the needs and desires of the people who are there, as well as based on the social, political and economic situation. When the other writer talks about teaching her students about work, it was disconnected with what they were doing. Not because they don’t work but because their goals and experiences are different from the population that Freire was working with. What I also appreciated about Freire was his analysis of seeing illiteracy as “undernourishment” and therefore requiring food to be filled up.

4.28

Jeff Smith

I read Hairston’s essay first but I’m posting my blog on J. Smith’s first.  I didn’t care for Hairston’s essay but I liked Smith’s because I felt like he took his time explaining his argument and also because his line of reasoning is very much based on students’ interests and goals.  Asking myself, “What would best serve the students?” helps me feel more focused because I get caught up in what I want, or in not wanting to “hurt their feelings and scar them from feeling like they are good writers.” I agree that as instructors we have to remember where we sit in the larger scheme of the educational system and of student experiences. The reality is most students are just trying to get through this class, and they want to become better writers, but mostly they want to get through the class.  There’s nothing wrong with that, but if we forget that then OUR feelings get hurt because we wonder, “Why don’t they care?”  I liked his argument that if we are really about helping people develop as individuals then we need to remember why they are in school, what their goals are, and how they will be impacting society in the future.  The one point I disagreed with him on is that instructors claim not to be gate keeping and wanting to keep the “bums in the seat” for economic reasons.  Teachers don’t want to be gatekeepers because they don’t want to deny people opportunities.  Of course you can’t deny somebody something they’re not working to get.     

4.21.McCarthy

Following “Dave” around in three different classrooms was helpful in seeing how he interpreted writing in different contexts.  It made sense that being a biology major, the writing required for that class had more meaning, especially compared to poetry which had a limited function for him.  I guess most of us don’t think that hard about what we write or how we write we just write.  One of my students was kind enough to share his essays from history class with me because he’d recieved high marks whereas in my class they have not been as high.  I wanted to see what the difference was…if he was writing differently or we were grading differently.  The latter was true and I told him so.  The history teacher was focused on whether he was familiar with the content and not so much concerned with organization or grammar.  I think students are pretty aware that each class is different.  The other day they were going on and on about how every class is different and every instructor is different and grades differently.  What I don’t think they are as aware of is how their own writing shifts in different settings. 

Out of the three classes I would want mine to be like the comp class in terms of its teaching writing as a process that we have control over and the level of social interaction between students.  I like the relationship described between the kid and his biology teacher becuase the student felt like his professor treated him as an equal.  I think some of my students may feel the way Dave felt in his poetry class: like the writing has little meaning or function outside of class, a lack of motivation because of the grades they’ve received.  I think part of that is due to a lack of interst on their end.  Just like D doesn’t care too much for poetry, not everyone is going to develop a love for writing.  I also think that on my end I have to be conscious, as McCarthy says, about the purpose and context of writing assignments. 

4.21

Hull

Glynda Hull’s main point in this piece is to challenge the idea that illiteracy is causing major problems in the work place and the economy.  The problem of poor worker production goes beyond being illiterate and being literate does not mean that all problems with the economy and work would be solved.  While reading this essay I was reminded of when people say, “She needs to learn English.”  There are two times I remember hearing this.  Once was in a statistics course as an undergraduate and everyone complained about the international instructor’s accent.  He did have a heavy accent but I felt like that was no excuse for us not knowing the material.  I was also embarrassed for him because some people automatically curled their lip up at him because of his accent.  Him being Asian and people stereotyping Asian people as not being able to speak English just made me cringe.  It goes hand in hand with all those other stereotypes like we don’t know how to drive, we’re unemotional, we smell funny, we bind our feet and catch flies with chopsticks. Another time when I heard someone say this was the apartment manager who made a call to another property.  She curled up her lip and started speaking loudly and impatiently.  When she hung up she went off about the other woman, “She needs to learn English.”  I am not against people learning English, but I’m also not against people having an accent. It always sounds so strong to me when people say, “They need to learn English” because of the lip curling and the tone and the implication that people don’t want to learn English or that the miscommunication has to do with a lack of English ability when really the miscommunication might have to do with other factors.  Hull talks about how there are negative implications of illiteracy which are closely tied to race and class.  I agree with this and I also agree that issues of illiteracy are much more complex and can’t be solved by showing a training video or giving tips of the week. 

 

Brandt

Brandt’s essay was well written in my eyes because she combines historical context with case studies.  I enjoyed her questions that dealt with individual paths to literacy as well as how individual experiences relate to the larger economic and political context.  I thought about the language arts programs in school and how they are scripted for teachers as if teachers were stupid or lazy. These programs make so much money selling themselves to entire school districts and teachers have to go to trainings where they get free felt bookmarks and other crap with the company logo on it.  Many companies that design curriculum are about business and making money.  They sell their books in sets with so many different workbooks that you could spend the whole day working on them and a lot of times they go unused.  While reading this article I also thought about access to books and other written texts and technology.  I remember when they were closing the libraries up in Salinas, CA and I couldn’t believe it because libraries are one of the most important public places in a community.  I must say, however that in this country, we—as in everybody—has access to books.  There are books at yard sales & second hand stores for less than a dollar.  There are book order forms at schools with very affordable books.  There are libraries, there are community events with book giveaways so in regards to books, I don’t think that anyone can say they don’t have access to them.  They might be marked up with the cover turn off, we might not all be able to afford to shop at Barnes and Nobles, but we have access to books.  When I was in Mexico is when I really realized this because I didn’t know of 2^nd hand bookstores and I remember going to buy all these beautiful new books. I counted how many pesos it was and it was in the hundreds and then there’s a kid asking for a single peso.

 

I enjoyed how her essay took the definition of literacy and related it to power dynamics and economic factors.  As she puts it, “…as we assist and study individuals in pursuit of literacy, we also recognize how literacy is in pursuit of them.”  By understanding and being conscious of how literacy pursues us (who defines it, what is published, what is used in schools) we are better able to control our independent development as readers and writers. 

 

4.14.part2

Harris & Wambeam

 

The researchers conducted an investigation comparing classrooms that integrate writing and discussions that are technologically based, with classrooms that don’t.  The ones using technology showed greater benefits because the writing had a wider audience and writers received immediate feed back.  Their theoretical positioning lies with Vgotsky and Bahktin: language and thought are part of social development.  With technology, we have access to a larger audience. 

 

The most fascinating part of this essay was the description of MOO and how places are described, resulting in, “…expanding discourse space boundaries.”  I don’t know if this is what the authors meant but I think of talking in outer space and then talking in the inside of a strawberry. 

 

I think that using technology can have all the benefits that they speak on but it makes me tired to think about.  I would not want to go on line and have to check how many times each person logged in.

 

Sullivan

This article has relevance for those going into the business world, or any industry in which they would be required to create texts with visuals.  The text felt dated to me because at this point word processing programs are taken for granted.   My favorite point brought up in this essay is how the way we think is changed by technology.  Technology allows for new ways of processing information, although on the flipside I suppose it could take it away as well.  I think the idea of considering form and its relation to text is interesting but I don’t see it’s relevance to the composition classroom.  Perhaps if it were a more specific writing class.  Technical writing, web writing, presentation writing. 

 

4.14

McGee & Ericsson

 

This article is a tale of the little man (composition instructor) against the big monster (microsoft).  Microsoft, rampant, invading, is stuffing its notions of grammar into minds across the world.  Teachers cannot enter the homes and workplaces of students as Microsoft word can and so their influence, in comparison to the computer’s, is minimal.

 

I agree that most people, myself included, don’t stop to think about who designed this technology.  We just use it and how it works only becomes a concern if it breaks. When word corrects my grammar I envision…will I don’t envision anything I just say, “o.k. The computer says so,” as if the computer were a person.  Sometimes I correct (usually with word spellings) and sometimes I ignore what the spell check says (if it doesn’t make sense to me or I don’t understand the rule, but mostly if it doesn’t make sense to me). I don’t think the researchers give enough credit to users.  Grammar isn’t my strong suit but I know enough about language to know that sometimes a certain way of constructing a sentence sounds right.  Even if we don’t think about how the computer and its programs are designed we still know that they are machines and have imperfections and make mistakes.  True, less confident writers may rely more heavily on the spell check but even so…I don’t think the Microsoft grammar check has quite the death hold that the authors make it out to have.  I see plenty of mistakes in my writing and in student writing to know that the spelling and grammar check is often ignored.

 

As far as solutions, I definitely think we should continue to learn in depth about grammar because it is studying how language works and functions; it is a study of patterns.

 

Slattery

This reading was interesting because I know nothing about technical writing.  The notion of people sifting through e-mails, text messages, pdf files, and old drafts in order to compile a new but not unique text is so strange to me.  Technical writers are putting pieces of a puzzle together.  What disturbs me is that they don’t have expertise in what they are piecing together.  Do they learn about the subject as they work on it?  I imagine that they would because they’re reading about it.  It’s also weird how work gets over distributed so that nobody really knows what’s going on.  This doesn’t surprise me because you see it anytime you are trying to get answers from a company.  I still remember being a student with a financial aid question and the woman at the desk didn’t have an answer.  She didn’t try to find out what my concern was; she just knew it wasn’t her department. She repeated the same line over and over again.  “Go to building such and such, third floor.  Go to building such and such, third floor.”  It seemed like she spent a good amount of her life behind that desk. I imagine the drawers were quite organized and clean because her area of responsibility was limited.  It’s dangerous to the intellect to have work divided up like that where what you are an expert in is such a small piece that you don’t even really understand your role in it.  The work scene that Slattery describes for technical writers is affected by this type of distribution.  I know that writing is used for different reasons and by different people.  I suppose technical writing strikes me as being of the writers’ lack of knowledge in the subject and because of the strategy of shifting around different texts to form one final version.  It’s very bizarre but an interesting look at how written language is alive because it is so much a function of society.  Is it meant to serve a poetic function?  A secretive function? In the case of technical writing…a conglomeration of disconnected experts.   

4.7

Ong: The evolution of language.  Human evolution.  How words on paper evolve. Language is alive because it can be seen in so many different ways including as just black marks upon the page.  Part of this definition of writing stems from the fact that the act of writing, the actual moment of writing, is usually a solitary activity.  The interactions that lead up to the writing are largely social.  I love the image he gives of a crowd of people with the same book and when the “leader” says to read the passage, immediately they fragment and each person is in their own place.  I suppose that in church (Catholic) that is why you have the text in front of you but it is read out loud at the same time.

 

The other day I was looking up Barack Obama’s speech from May 18^th, regarding race relations in the U.S. The speech is approximately 40 minutes long so I looked for the transcription of it because it would be faster to read than to listen to the whole thing.  Politicians have that slow, pause pause pause way of speaking plus there is also the clapping to account for.  Before reading any part of the speech I listened to the first 10 minutes of it and I remember I was carried along with the rhythm of his voice and the way his words strung together.  Reading the text was much more about focusing on the words themselves.  There was still a rhythm but he wasn’t so much a part of it.  In reading it I also concentrated more on how one idea led into the next.  After reading the entire speech I went back and listened to different parts of the speech again.  The second listening was when I really felt the difference between oral language and written.  Once again I was swept along with the sounds.  By that I mean, if I wasn’t able to distinguish what words he was saying…I would still be able to get a sense of tone, of feeling.  Certain phrases struck me that I had merely skimmed over while I was reading.  It was an accidental but good exercise in seeing how we experience language differently when it is oral and when it is written.

 

I have not had this sensation when I’ve gone to book readings.  I think it has to do with the fact that at readings, the reader is reading directly from the piece of paper.  What they have written was meant for the paper. This is very different than writing a speech.  If you know it is meant to be written and understood by reading, then your audience is more distant.  In contrast, if you are writing a speech you know that there will be a sea of faces before you.  You cannot hide.  You will not be invisible. 

 

Another example of experiencing oral versus written language is that I listened to a song by Immortal Technique.  The song has 6 different artists, each one taking on a character in the scene of cocaine trafficking.  Listening to the song the characters are very distinct.  For one, their voices change and along with it their intonation, their word choice, their tempo. Then there was the steady beat behind them that unified them.  Now I’m not one for hip hop because my mind tends to wander.  I’m more of a cheesy hook kinda girl but I like this song because of its content and just because it sounds good. I printed out the lyrics because I might be using it in class and when I looked at those black marks on paper, it felt so flat.  If I had been introduced to the song first through the lyrics on the paper I would not have been impressed.  But it is an interesting idea to think about a writer would go about translating these strong characters and voices onto paper.  As writers that is what we try to do—maybe more so in fiction but I would say in all writing we are trying to get across ideas, thoughts, feelings, personas.  And it is also what we try and teach our students to do: to have voice, to express their ideas in a thorough and unique manner.  When writing, our tools are: the words, our imaginations and the imaginations of the readers—who we don’t know but assume to know.  Unlike with music or a speech, we don’t have musical instruments or beats to back as up; we don’t have visual props behind is; we don’t have physical mannerisms or clothing that can create an image of who we are.  Our tools for getting our message across are much more abstract and it takes work to develop that message. But when we are able to create the right rhythm to our writing, and to create 6 distinct voices onto paper with mere letters, that is art, that is using writing to boldly and effectively make a statement, stake a place in the world.

 

Bruffee & Trimbur

Once again the 1970s is pointed to as a time of turmoil at the college level given the open admissions policy.  Every time this comes up in our readings I think about this newspaper clipping of one of my uncles or distant cousins who went to college in Saginaw, Michigan.  He was a young kid, just out of high school, wearing bell bottoms and sitting at a table, small and square like the kind used to play checkers on.  He has a mini-afro and he is reading a book at a park called “People’s Park” but it’s not the one in Berkeley, CA. 

 

The challenges that come with open admissions are huge because you have so many people working at different levels and coming from different experiences.  But I also think that these challenges are invaluable for understanding how different people learn, as well as forcing educators to think about what the purpose of education is and our role in it.  It makes sense to me that collaborative learning would arise out of this situation.  The ideas that discussion stimulates can be the best part of being in class.  Several of my students last semester commented that they liked class discussions the best because it gave them the chance to hear other people’s interpretation of the readings.  This semester, well to be honest, last week, I decided to try small discussion groups rather than whole class discussion.  From a being a student I know that having the instructor present and listening can inhibit honesty and can cause the conversation to lean towards what the instructor wants.  We’re human so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the fact that we influence each other but since the teacher has more power in the classroom setting that influence can weigh heavier than the students’. 

 

I agree with Bruffee that while we want discussion we also distrust it.  What if the students don’t go in depth enough?  What if they don’t talk about what I, the instructor want them to talk about?  Everything will be ruined!  The notion of abnormal discourse is important because there is the danger that students will just agree with the dominant point of view, much as they may do when they are in a whole class discussion.

 

How does one teach the importantance of abnormal discourse?  Well, Bahktin and Jess McCall’s notion of thinking about why we think what we think is one way. Trimbur’s essay called this to mind.  Asking why we do what we are doing, and why we do it the way we do, rather than just doing it.   Another main point: let’s agree to disagree. 

 

Johnson-Eilola et al.

I cannot agree with their argument that we should ask students to remix written text to problem solve versus focusing on original text.

 

I agree that other people influence our thoughts and our ideas.  I agree that a truly original idea is probably impossible to have or find but I recoil at this notion of approaching writing as a remapping of other writings.  Probably I’m not fully understanding what this would look like. They mention templates.  Boring.  They quote and cite many studies, which I don’t know if this is supposed to be one way of “remixing.” But it too is boring.  I know, we’re not supposed to say something so poorly articulated as, “it’s boring.” But the idea seems like it will produce boring writing.  Remixing as it applies to music or photography is different.  I can accept that although I’m not sure why.  Perhaps because in music you are working with sounds, in photography with images, in writing, you’re working with ideas.  Naturally we rework ideas and form them into our own ORIGINAL ideas.  Overlaying ideas is not the same as overlaying sounds.  I’m interested in hearing what other people have to say. 

 

Porter

Porter’s essay helps me better understand the previous essay because he also writes about how text feeds off of text..  I agree that we write and our writing exists in contact with other writing.  The idea of the romantic lone writer is a new one for me but I can see how that is idealized and how that negates collaborative writing efforts and the impact that writing has on other writing.  I appreciate that he addresses the argument of discourse communities being exclusive and constricting because it’s what I was thinking as he talked about each discourse community having its own set of rules.  His counterargument is that the individual does have freedom (as long as they know the game) and each individual writing helps to define and redefine the larger conversation.  This notion of writing still feels awful constricting.  It still feels like a wiping away of individual characteristics.  I’m uncomfortable with this whole notion of training, initiation, regularization. Isn’t the point of knowledge to push?  To think?  In other essays we’ve read people have discussed how students know there is a particular way of writing formally and for school.  They imitate, go through the rituals, but that doesn’t mean they understand why they are writing the way they do.