Comments for Zarazuam's Weblog

Comment on 3.31 by Dr. J

Dr. J — Thu, 15 May 2008 05:08:02 +0000

Good response to Flower and Hayes. What about the other three readings, Ong, Bizzell, Dias et al.?

Comment on 4.21 by Dr. J

Dr. J — Thu, 15 May 2008 05:00:54 +0000

You say there are all kinds of access to books in our society, but that might be from your perspective. Studies show (and Brandt’s study, also turned into a book, also shows) that there’s a correlation between literacy attained and books and literature in the household. You would be shocked and saddened by how many kids grow up without books-aside from school.

Comment on 4.21.McCarthy by Dr. J

Dr. J — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:56:53 +0000

Yes, what counts as “good” writing varies from class to class. That is really all we have to awaken students too. And they know it too. That’s part of a rhetorical approach to teaching writing: help students figure out what counts as good writing in each new writing context they enter, wether by asking questions, studying models, collaborating with peers, etc. Students need to learn how to identify and adapt to new writing situations. The example I’ve used over and over again: don’t teach MLA format like it is the only one that exists in the world.

Comment on 4.28 by Dr. J

Dr. J — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:52:01 +0000

Well, a good many teachers want to “deny people opportunities.” They are the ones who feel no guilt over giving Cs, Ds, and Fs. As humanists, we tend to be a bit more humane, I suppose, but not always. Literature breeds a certain elitism. I am also thinking of Mina Shaugnessy’s “Diving In” article. She did not invent the “guarding the tower” type. It exists.

Comment on 4.28 by Dr. J

Dr. J — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:48:12 +0000

These are very insightful comments on these readings. I suppose the idea is to strike a balance between helping students understand how language functions to serve certain interests but also helping students make choices about how to best act/live within the system. Sometimes we may not agree with the choices our students make (and also it may simply be a matter of age: studies show that students priorities change over time, as they take on more responsibility, jobs, children, etc…).

Comment on cinco.de.mayo by Jeff Jablonski

Jeff Jablonski — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:43:49 +0000

You say “good writing” is one that is “enjoyable” (for the writer) and “deep.” That puts you more in the expressivist camp that focuses on the individual. However, you say that the best way to teach is to have students writer to multiple audiences and for multiple purposes. Why do this, if your definition of good writing oes not have an audience or social element? You either need to revise your definition of good writing or revise your idea of how best to teach good writing.

P.S. I didn’t quite make sense of your reflecltion on Berlin; you didn’t seem to be commenting on the content of the article at all.

Comment on mini.cinco.de.mayo by Jeff Jablonski

Jeff Jablonski — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:31:31 +0000

This is a good point, one that returns to the old question of what is the aim of the firstyear writing course. Most people assume it is either to teach basic writing (read mechanics) or, slightly better, be some introduction to college writing (i.e., college survival skills: essays, research papers, even exam writing). Many in our field argue it can be and should be more, e.g., a critical approach that teaches students to be aware of how language is used to society (mostly for domination and control). Even when we do want to do more with writing classes, the outside constitutents like professors and employers will always try to “narrow” the aims of the course.

I think Downs and Wardle would share you view and would be open to letting students explore writing from their own interests, e.g., an English major who would want to do a project on creative writing/poety…

Comment on 4.14.part2 by Jeff Jablonski

Jeff Jablonski — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:29:28 +0000

The thought of teaching online “tires” you. Yes, I think we are still at a point where we are figuring out if online teaching has benefits. Obviously, a lot of students, particularly non-tradtional working students w/ families, find online courses better suited to their busy lives. And maybe writing instruction, where it is primarily the one-to-one exhange of writer and teacher, is well-suited to online indivudalized instruction. But, yes, some of the face-to-face dynamic is missing. The Wambeam article raises questions about whether or not that face-to-face dynamic is over-rated.

Comment on 4.14 by Jeff Jablonski

Jeff Jablonski — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:20:12 +0000

I liked your reflections on the distributedness of contemporary professional writing. Though, I wouldn’t limit the kind of “textual coordination” that Slattery describes to just technical writers. The point is that computers have changed writing processes for most writers, students and “SME” professionals alike.

Most companies that hire technical writers prefer the writer to have some familiarity with the subject. That is why we encourage our English majors who want to become tech writers to get a minor in an area they think they want to write in, e.g., computers, science, engineering. Tech writers are employed in all sectors. Tech writers also argue, however, that their non-expert status helps them think like the typical user so that they can ask questions from the experts, who can’t even seem to agree on how many cables are in the widget. Prior to tech writers, it was mostly the engineers doing the writing. That was when instructions and manuals were *REALLY* bad. Another problem now is with outsourcing. A lot of instructions are bing writting in India and China. And they are mostly *REALLY* badly written.

Comment on 4.7 by Gina

Gina — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:50:31 +0000

Monica,
I find it interesting that you are so against the use of assemblage in the classroom, yet it sounds to me as though the group you mention–Immortal Technique–uses the technique itself. Maybe assemblage could be useful as a group (small or whole-class) technique for teaching/demonstrating synthetic reasoning. Since it starts with something students are familiar with, it might provide an in to help them understand something that they seem to find incredibly difficult. Just something to think about. Peace, Gina