March24.riddins

I enjoy Rose’s essays the most so I’ll begin with him. What I enjoy about his articles is that he considers the larger context of people. He brings in economic, political and social factors. His writing is also well organized. In “Narrowing the Mind and Page…” he considers various theories on cognition, one by one he evaluates their history, their application in the original field of study and later how they have been applied to writing. I find it quite appalling that some of these theories have been applied to students in a fashion that basically says they’re stupid. It points to how little we understand about reading, writing and language development and also the biases that we all carry into our research, interpretation and analysis.

I clearly remember a bunch of kids I knew in Champaign, Illinois. I knew them through a tutoring service in which we didn’t do that much tutoring but we played soccer, ate snacks and read some books. From the tutoring program I came to know their families and would sometimes drop in and see them. Anyways, here you have these kids who were so damn smart and funny and sure they would act up but they were kids, and they’d mess around but they’d also do those endearing things like look after one another.

I remember when I went to see them at school. Completely different. Quiet. They didn’t have the confidence they did hanging from the trees at home. and they were the kids labeled with learning disabilities. At risk. I’m not saying they didn’t need extra support or that teachers had bad intentions but the difference in how the children carried themselves, how they were perceived was so stark. I was so glad that I knew them before I ever stepped into the school because otherwise I would have seen them only in terms of how the school environment judged them. They really seemed like completely different kids at home versus at school and it highlighted for me how separate school can be from home life, how different people can act and be seen.

When some of this research gets applied to students, I think researchers are entering from that other end —that end of the scholarly, school—that end or vantage point that sees the students in a negative light. If researchers were to come from another angle, from the students home life / community then maybe some of the misinterpretations, and misconceptions, and poorly applied research would not occur.

I appreciate Rose’s analysis of these various theories, as well as his acknowledgement of their usefulness and influence on ways of thinking and analyzing. Some of these findings get me so worked up and emotional and I know academia prides itself on being objective. But come on. Would the researchers say these things about their children? Would they say they are at a cognitive disadvantage? Or stuck in phase three of their mental development? Of course not. At least I hope not. I just want to say, “Shut up!” So I’m glad Rose does a better job of responding than that.

In “The Language of Exclusion,” Rose writes about how writing is seen as a tool rather than a discipline and what the implications for this are. 1. Research has focused on fixed aspects of writing which has resulted in a drill kill mode of instruction. 2. Writing has been defined as a skill which keeps it 2nd class, and again reduces it to something you drill rather than a complex activity requiring practice and opportunities. 3) The idea of remediation stems from a medical mode of thinking and as a result we think we must diagnose the problem then slap a band aid on it. 4) college students are not illiterate, by any definition that he mentions, yet the word “illiterate” is powerful and emotional so it’s titilating to use.

What I may remember most from this essay is the idea to interpret errors rather than circle them (565). I think it was this essay that stated to also look for patterns. Try and understand what is happening in students’ writing.

It seems like having your writing graded can be one of the most horrific academic experiences. It’s interesting being a student and an instructor. It’s easy to be the instructor and mark up a paper but to then have to turn around and be the student and get marked up…I’m finding that I feel a sense of terror, especially if marks are made but no explanation. Writing, even if it is done without much care, is an extension of the person who wrote it. This is not to say that we can’t evaluate it, but we have to remember that there is a thought process underlying the writing. Bad writing does not mean that the thought process is faulty but that there is a disruption along the way between the thought process, to the writing, to the reading, to the thought process of the reader.

Has there been research on instructors not knowing how to read the language of their students versus students not knowing how to write in the language of the instructor? I’m quite sure there has been.

Last year there were some new students from Yemen to the elementary school where I worked. One was a first grader who was just learning to read and she had been learning to read from right to left. My brother joked about how what if nobody realized that that was just how’d she’d been taught. She might have been labeled with a learning disability and been judged on that for the rest of her school life.

On to Bartholomae. From what I understand, he is discussing how college students attempt to write in the academic discourse without fully grasping how. They are expected to take a privileged voice even though they are not in a privileged social position. He writes, “…education has failed to involve students in scholarly projects, projects that allow students to act as though they were colleagues in an academic enterprise.” This point is important because if we expect students to write academically then they need an academic project to truly engage in academic discourse.

Another important point he makes is the distinction between learning history and learning to think like a historian (633). Reading this statement, written so clearly made me feel….well it rang true, so it made me feel as if I was reading a statement of truth. Of course, our students are in different disciplines so is our role then to help them think as writers? Although Rose brings up that we mistakenly think of “weak” writers as having different thinking processes than “strong writers.” Hmmm…..To think like a historian. To think like a scientist. To think like a writer? Ah…I see. Bartholomae sees writing as a tool. Writing as a tool to think like a historian, to think like a barber, to think like a phlebotomist.

My interpretation of his writing is that students have the challenge of entering the academic world. How do they enter it? Through their writing. Is that what Prof. Jablonsky means every time he says we’re the gate keepers. What I remember most about this essay is what a nice contrast Mike Rose’s essay made together with it, in terms of style as well as perspective (writing as a tool, writing as a discipline).

Finally, Shaughnessy. Oh yes now I remember. The essay from the 70’s with capital letters so that it feels like she’s yelling at you. and she’s none too pleased with instructors because we pretty much view our students as big dummies. Her essay (stylistically) is also a nice contrast with the other 2. I’d say we have a nice mix of voices. She discusses common problems that teachers see in their students’ writing. Their approach to these stages depends on their STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. Her various examples have in common that students often don’t understand what the instructor is telling him to fix. I agree with her that if students are conscious about their writing then they are less willing to take risks. They will do what is the easiest. They will write “doctor,” instead of “phlebotomist,” which could easily be written, “phlembotomist.” I was terrified of the ridicule that might follow if I put that “m.” so I checked several dictionaries and called my personal assistant for advice.

According to Shaughnessy, instructors do the following: GUARD THE TOWER (protect the academy from outsiders), CONVERT THE NATIVES (fill the void with my wisdom) SOUND THE DEPTHS (search for patters and logic of errors), DIVE IN (assume I’m the student.) This essay felt very much like a response to the open admissions policy that apparently scared the crap out of many university instructors and administrators. I think it was the capital letters and the phrases that lent the 70’s feel. Phase 2-4 I’ve heard of, participated in. Phase one of guarding the tower…oh wait maybe they were guarding the tower from me? Protect the academy from outsiders….well this ties into Rose’s idea of how universities want to keep the designation of “remedial” because it distinguishes those who can with those who just might not be able to cut it. hmm….to distinguish the phlebotomist from the phlembotomist. Well, I conclude we’re all here trying to do our job to the best of our ability, whatever that job may be.

more.4.march10

Sommers
Several people have advised me to give general comments on areas that students need to focus on in their revision. This is what Sommers calls “rubber stamping.” She is against doing this because students don’t have the strategies to find and correct what these rubber stamps say. I agree with her emphasis on giving students strategies and providing opportunities to use them, rather than just saying, “This is wrong. Fix it.” I also agree with her analysis that instructors give contradictory advice. It might not intend to be contradictory but because we often look at the paper as a whole, rather than a revision, we’ll comment on grammar, ideas, structure…a range of aspects of the paper until the papers become overloaded with comments. It can be hard to not correct blatant and frequent grammar mistakes and to focus just on the ideas but it’s important that, “Our comments [are] suited to the draft we are reading.” (155). Of course, one question is, how many of their drafts should we read? Nothing in her essay struck me as being incorrect or faulty. I would add that learning and teaching about the revision process takes time and is embedded in an overall concept of writing which places the emphasis on development of thoughts and ideas.

Elbow
Elbow does something I do in my blogs which is refer back to his teaching. “What I do is…” for some reason this annoyed me. I know he was using his own experience to support his points but…I think I know why it bothers me. There is a book about teaching written by this teacher from Chicago. Esmé somebody. In it she writes about how a more experienced teacher told her that with experience you quit asking, “How am I doing?” and start asking, “How are my students doing?” Teaching is a topic that will get me going, give me diarrhea of the mouth. It’s also a topic that sometimes I feel like saying, “Can we talk about something else now?” I guess it’s because it’s a topic without end and sometimes there’s a martyrdom aspect to it which is tiresome.

The use of “I’ was just a small part of his essay, however. Maybe it’s ironic that it bothered me since one of the points he makes is how academic writing attempts to distance itself from the “I.” The result of this distancing is that the writing can become convoluted, and give an air of the writer being, “the almighty knowing one.” Writers can hide behind the impersonal by not making explicit claim to their statements.

There is another purpose in not using “I” that I don’t believe he mentions or maybe he only hints at without really analyzing. Confidence. Rather than saying “I think, I feel” the writer says what they want to say without needing to further attach it to themselves. That attachment is already there. Because the writer is aware of this attachment and comfortable with it, they don’t need to say, “I.” The use or nonuse of, “I,” is superficial. Use it or don’t use it, ultimately what matters is the thought behind it. I like Elbow’s point that the stylistic aspects of academic writing are superficial if they are separated from the notions of inquiry, argument and support. I also think that these stylistic aspects naturally enter into a person’s writing as they read more of that type of writing and practice doing it.

His attack on the assumption that nobody writes unless they have to was good to read. I have this assumption even though it’s not true of me. I assume that most people don’t like to write and they’re not going to unless it’s for school or a job. Why do I think this? Why not have the perspective that other people (who aren’t necessarily English majors or working on their big novel) would also write? That’s quite foolish thinking on my part, especially since it’s not like I dislike writing or find it to be a waste of time. Quite the opposite.

What sucks about constantly critiquing other people’s writing and arguments is that it sometimes inhibits my own writing. I can hear a voice saying, “oh faulty argument! Oh poor grammar!” It’s a nasty little voice and it has so many friends who chime in. For this reason I think writing opportunities and exercises like free writing is important. We need to have times when we can write without fear of criticism, especially if much of our writing is graded. Elbow talks about the importance of being able to use different ways of writing, different word choices to explain concepts and to develop awareness of our own thought processes. He talks about how trying to imitate academic language can inhibit this. I agree. Sometimes the ideas need to just pour out and if that means using jargon and colloquialisms and passive voice and all that good stuff then do it. Part of the power in language is 1) knowing that it’s valid and wonderful to do that and 2) knowing how to shape and mold the ideas in the manner that you most want to present it whether it be academic, nonacademic, poetic, whatever.

Elbow’s essay was a good read for these ideas: good academic writing is good writing, understanding different discourse is more important than trying to understand a singular academic discourse (which doesn’t exist), discourse means talking with someone, conventions of academic discourse (objective tone, explicit statement of purpose, language that avoids the ordinary and the majority of people) are only superficial aspects of the writing.

I feel him wanting to burst out of this academic world of writing. He hasn’t quite done it, but he wants to. He doesn’t want to be explicit and clear cut. He wants to be chaotic and witty in getting out his ideas, which he’s been ruminating about and chewing on for years. I think he should just do it. It’s time to let the restrains off of his own writing.

3.10

Connors “Mechanical Correctness…”
Much of this article was a review of the history of rhetoric. There was the classical period which focused on the oratory, persuasive, Greek method. Then Harvard had a test for incoming Freshmen. To the graders’ horror they found that incoming freshmen were miserable writers. What was the solution? Rather than identify the root of the problem as being little exposure and practice of writing, the root was deemed to be mechanical. Fix it!

I am not surprised by the impact of large classes on writing instruction. Hundreds of papers to grade? No. There is no individualized attention and the instructor, in order to get through all of them, has to focus on several key aspects, ones that are clear cut, hence mechanics.

This notion of linguistic insecurity was interesting because, well first of all because of the phrase itself. “Linguistic Insecurity.” I felt a little bit of this when I started school last semester. I would have to tell people, “I don’t know what that word means,” because I didn’t. One single word threw me completely out of a conversation. English majors in graduate school practically have their own language. I was also out of practice. I knew that at one point in time I had been right in it: right in all the academic speech and bantering. Then I left it, partly because it was creeping and growing all over my brain, a mossy green substance that I could no longer control.

Linguistic insecurity. This has nothing to do with theory but I was also struck by other phrases like, “linguistic anxiety, ..a soldier in the rhetorical trenches…revolt.” This is serious business people. Minds are dying. Souls are being sucked away.

Linguistic insecurity, like so many other insecurities, is caused in part by more distinctive social classes, also by the gap between literate and illiterate.

Linguistic insecurity is perhaps felt the deepest by the very people who study language the most. They can’t explain themselves. They don’t know the rules either and when they do establish the rules, caray, somebody breaks them.

Hartwell
This man seems quite clever. He got me with a couple of his tricks. One was the sentence with four errors. It nicely illustrated his point that when we can and should think about language in different ways, not just the surface aspects but also at the level of ideas. The “French the young girls four,” was also effective to prove that we know rules without knowing rules. I would say that this is the main message I pulled out from the essay. We already have internal rules. My rules might not be the same as yours, which could cause conflict but doesn’t have to if we acknowledge that neither of us is wrong, or that we’re both wrong and nobody’s right.

I’m not 100 % sure, but I think he was also saying that literacy presents another set of rules that may or may not coincide with our internal rules. Nonetheless, we absorb and learn them through exposure.

Exposure, exposure, exposure to language is another message. Through contact with language we learn about it. I like the idea of playing with and manipulating language as a way to understand and use it better.

While I don’t think grammar should be the focus of a class, I also don’t think it’s entirely useless to have a very strategic and specific grammar lesson from time to time, especially if the mistake inhibits the readers’ understanding of the message. Discovery at your own pace is lovely, but sometimes that just takes too damn long. Sometimes we just have to get everybody on board. I think exposure and practice is the best way of understanding patterns in language (my definition of grammar probably stolen from Hartwell) but there is nothing wrong with explicit instruction.

As I read this (here it comes…work tale) I thought about one of my students who wrote, “There was nothing standing between me and accomplishment.” Does it sound a bit funny? I thought so at first but then I thought, “Well, why? Accomplishment is a noun so technically it’s o.k.” Then I thought about how it’s usually used. What came to my mind is when you have to fill out an application or go to an interview and the boss or evaluator always wants to know what some of your accomplishments are. Accomplishments are usually spoken of in the past or as already existing. (I know my analysis of this word is correct because I thought about it for a good 90 seconds) But why can’t it be spoken about in the future or as a place/ position to arrive at? Then I rethought the use of the word and pictured this young man on his motorcross bike. Before him was a twelve foot wall of dirt which he had to ride up, spin off of, accelerate and zoom off the other edge straight into ACCOMPLISHMENT. The sentence fit perfectly into the rest of his narrative.

Why do we say what we do in the way that we do? Let’s keep asking that. Grammar sheets are o.k. too, but let’s keep asking that. We order the world. We understand it even more than we realize. Recognizing our internal set of rules can help us apply them to new situations, modify and add to them as needed.

march3.readings.part2

Perl, Sandra
Although her methodology might have holes in it, her results were interesting. My interest piqued when she talked about how students will say the correct word even though it is written incorrectly or sometimes isn’t even there. Just the other day I observed this and it caught me by surprise. I’m not sure what it means, but it definitely hits at the complexity of thought and language processing. I’m wondering if it means that students need to read slower, need more practice at this, and also if I do this as well. I know we don’t always catch our own mistakes, which is why it’s important to have somebody else read over our writing, but I feel like I catch most of my mistakes. If I don’t catch them, sometimes it’s because I don’t know they are mistakes. These types of miscues, point to the necessity and value of combining writing studies with other disciplines, such as linguistics. The other key point of this essay for me, was the idea of internalized writing processes. The idea that students already have a well-embedded system of writing strikes me as completely correct, yet I never thought about it. In my mind I thought of my students as having misconceptions about writing but I never thought about it in terms of them have a way of writing that is both conscious and unconscious. What I liked about the study is that it shows how systematic we are, or at least these five writers were. In other words, there are patterns to the way we relate speech to writing, the way we produce writing. Part of the reason I accept this finding is that I know in spoken language, “broken English,” isn’t really broken. People who are multilingual transfer what they know about one language to another. The mistakes they make aren’t random, which is why certain speaking tendencies are associated with certain languages. For example, Spanish speakers may say, “eschool,” instead of, “school.” Or place the adjective after the noun instead of in front of it. This type of research, which analyzes language patterns and thought process, draws my attention because we (teachers, “the educated”) are quick to stigmatize those who break the rules, don’t know the rules, are deemed unskilled in the academic world. When we look closer, however, we find that there are causes, there are patterns, and that people have systems and methods of writing that, while they may not be the most useful, are still complex and founded on experience and experimentation.

Sommers
I like this essay a lot. We read it in 791 and I liked it then too. The observations on how students view revision are in keeping with my observations. Most want to write their essay and be done with it. They begin with an idea, write, write, write, to lead up to that pre-established idea and then put the pencil down. The quotes from experienced writers also rang true to me. This may be an essay I’ll have my students read. I know I’m always bringing it back to them, but I believe that’s the point of all these studies, isn’t it? I’m interested in knowing what their reactions to this essay would be. I can’t identify with the student part. I don’t remember writing like that. I hope that doesn’t come off like me saying, “Oh I’m a fantastic writer and I was just born this way.” I really don’t remember thinking like that about writing. O.k. that’s a small lie. I remember in high school I would whip out these crappy essays. Mostly I remember looking at my paper with all its pencil marks and my teacher’s weird comments. They weren’t weird I just didn’t know how to write. I wrote how I spoke. I wrote without thinking or going back and revising. Very quickly my English teacher put me in check. I improved so much that she mused on about how much progress I’d made as an English language learner. Yes, I was an English language learner, but I didn’t know any other language. Anyways, so I’d like to know what responses my students would have, what thoughts. This is another future project. Of course the next question is, what next? Hmmmmm…how to see revision as a process, as a continual occurrence, as a quest for meaning? Well I suppose first you have to want to find meaning, which means having a purpose beyond getting a good grade. Maybe. Maybe wanting a good grade is enough of a beginning motivator. Somewhere for something, I wrote about that feeling of excitement and clarity when you finally get on paper exactly what you want to say. My theory is that many people haven’t experienced this, which is part of the reason writing becomes drudgery. Thought and discovery: two wonderful experiences that can be had through writing. I like this.

march.3

Murray
These are some of his words and phrases that I highlighted:
“critical skills
…to make language live
…conscientious, doggedly responsible, repetitive autopsying doesn’t give birth to live writing.”
“…writing is a demanding, intellectual process…”
“He doesn’t test his words by a rule book, but by life.”

O.k. I won’t go on quoting, otherwise it will seem like I’m just trying to boost my word count. I just wanted to list them because part of the magic of words comes from when I hear them or read them, at just the right moment, in just the right way, and I say, “aaaahhh…”

I agree with Murray that writing is process. The pleasure and pain of it is in the process. However, shifting to this perspective in the classroom is not merely a matter of writing new lesson plans. I’m glad he says that designing a new curriculum doesn’t happen over night because, phew, that takes some of the pressure off. One challenge I have with focusing on process is that while my focus is on process, that doesn’t mean my students think the same way. This morning I was all prepared. This morning I was all ready and geeked up. Today was peer review day. We were gonna read some real live student writing from their very own class! How organic. You know what they did? They gave me the blank eyes, silent treatment. I thought, “Oh tough crowd.” They weren’t very engaged with each other’s writings, or at least they didn’t express it much. I had to use my hook and go around pulling thoughts out from their nostrils.

One of the biggest complaints last semester, in regards to peer review was, “people aren’t honest. They’re too nice.” I think part of this is because,1) they don’t want to criticize too harshly because they don’t want to face the same treatment 2) they are shy in regards to their writing so they’re hesitant to be completely honest 3) They don’t necessarily care about what each other is writing about. You know, you think you have the answers (focus on process! Be student oriented) and it just all goes to hang.

But I still agree with Murray. Writing is hard. Writing means commitment. Writing is a process of discovery. Oh my gosh. Sounds like teaching. Oh my gosh. Sounds like life. Well, no wonder researching writing isn’t so easy or clear cut. No wonder nothing is proven and nothing is absolute. If writing were merely about product, then we could say: one, two, three, there’s the package. We’d do it assembly style. We’d plug and chug. Writing doesn’t work like that because we’re not machines. Unfortunately, many people are taught writing with a focus on product. I know in some ways I focus on it too. Part of shifting to process oriented writing is…well let’s say you’ve been dancing the electric slide, shifting to hula dancing might take some getting used to. Switching emphasis from product to process doesn’t merely occur with a clap of the hands or a change in music. Switching to a focus on process is itself a process.

Emig
I just remembered other people can read this because it’s a blog. What higher cognitive function did I just use? Emig presents writing as composing and creating. What I most like about her essay is her discussion of the way that writing is paced with thinking. Why do I like this? It makes sense to me. As I pause in my thinking (like I did just now) I pause in my writing. When my brain is off and running, so too are my fingers typing. But wait. The same thing occurs in speech. Hmmm…She says writing uses both left brain and right. Nothing new there. Speech does to, doesn’t it? Although if I remember correctly from linguistics, there is a specific part of the brain that creates speech. Nevertheless, emotion and intuition also influence speech. I continue to be unsure of the difference between speech and writing. I thought I understood. Let’s see. Ah. A list of differences. How convenient. O.k. so Emig views writing as more of a tool. Interesting. “Writing is a technological device,” she says. Well. What does that mean? That makes my hairs stand up. They are saying, “huh?” Oh. Because writing is an invention. Sure, o.k. in that sense it’s a technology.
I thought I agreed with her, but after taking a second look, it seems that writing and speaking have a lot in common. Both change with context, both require thought. The biggest difference would be that speech you can’t revise like you can with writing. I believe Sommers says this. Writing and speaking aren’t precisely parallel in regards to how they occur but Ewig doesn’t completely convince me writing is a level up from speaking.
O.k. here’s another look. P. 13, says that writing is slower, you can go at your own pace, it repeats, all of which allows for analysis and processing. I’m curious as to the differences in writing and speech….

Hillocks
Hillocks seemed none to fond of free writing. As I read his commentary on free writing and its usefulness, I felt tension. He was very keen on getting across the conclusion that free writing wasn’t so great and neither was the natural process mode of instruction. Must be an 80’s thing. His conclusions on p. 162 clued me in on a movement (at least on his part) away from free writing.

The break down of modes of instruction and focus of instruction was most useful to me. It helped me to read the examples he gave of different activities using different modes.

Speaking on, “focus of instruction,” at some point there needs to be a discussion about all those aspects: grammar & mechanics, models, sentence combining, scales, inquiry and free writing. The sentence combining was the one activity I have not ever done, except maybe in workbooks as a kid. I’ve never used it in my own teaching. Its success rate was surprising because it seems to me to be a bit mechanical and lacking of context.

Dissonance Paper

We played a game. We were in a taxi driving down a dark street on a country road lit only by the moon. The game was one where you find out your personality with three psychoanalytical questions. The first question was prompted by closing our eyes and picturing all white. “What do you feel?”

“Like sleeping.”
“Peace”
“It’s a blank canvas waiting for me to throw paint on it.”

In regards to a topic of inquiry my mind reads white, not like sleeping, not like peace, but like a canvas.

What would I like to investigate? What questions do I have?

Do students see themselves as writers or do they think of writing as a skill?
Should they think of themselves as writers?
What are they motivated to read and write about?
What relationship do they see between reading and writing?
If they were to design this course, how would they design it?
What do they think of the textbook we use in 101?
How do different Englishes become integrated in the classroom?
Do my students’ definitions of writing and being a writer come primarily from school? (example: I’m a C + writer).

Last week my students and I read two essays about different Englishes. One essay discussed the implications of “talking white” versus “talking black,” white being proper and academic, black being slang etc. The author ends saying, “I don’t talk white, I talk right.” The second essay discusses “broken English” and how it has shaped the author and her mother. Her conclusion is: This is the way my family talks! This is part of who I am!

What I really want to talk about though, isn’t the essays but my students. Nearly all of them could relate at some level to the essays because they have parents, and grandparents who speak other languages and other forms of English: German, Samoan, Tagalog, Ebonics, Japanese, Hawaiian pidgin, Lithuanian, Russian, Mojave, Spanish. I was surprised that the majority of them had a direct experience with someone who speaks English in a nonstandard manner. Yeah, we all speak differently to different people, but changes in speaking English due to context alone, is different than speaking different forms of English that are shaped by other languages.

Some of the overall responses to the readings were that my students distinguished between proper English and other Englishes. They stated that proper English is important to know in the academic and professional fields. Several commented on their abilities to switch from one way of speaking to another. As one young lady stated, “You gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em.” They wrote about their experiences translating for family members, which some viewed as positive and others as a drag. They wrote about being called white and declared that we should not be judged on how we speak but on who we are.

The articles we’ve been reading feel so far away from the students and the classroom. I know the topics are around theory and history and that is part of the reason why they feel distant. This information is important for understanding the context of where composition studies finds itself today. However, I’m eager to focus on what is currently occurring. By currently I mean, what is going on in the classroom as I teach, as we write, as we discuss, as we read, as we write some more.

Researchers ask, “Oh these Englishes, what to do with them? How do they affect the student? How do they shape composition instruction?” I ask those same questions. I also wonder, how many researchers have personal experience with this. Do most researchers on the topic come from (to simplify) standard English speaking backgrounds? Or like Mr. Canagarajah, have they had to personally navigate between home and family, friends, dominant, academic ways of speaking. Again, I’m not referring to just changes in context. I’m referring to changes in sentence structure, word choice, rhythm, accent, syntax, aspects of language that mark the speaker as being of a particular background.

Another reason for the distance between theory and practice, and between my perceptions and my students is that I’ve always liked reading and writing. I believe people who wrote the 101 textbook probably feel the same way. Because of this, I have a hard time understanding how my students view reading and writing. Their experience with it has come in large part from outside sources: textbooks and teachers, tests. I know they write e-mails, text messages, journals, poetry. What, however, is their view of themselves as writers. What is it? Where does it come from? And how does that shape their concept of what it means to write? Also, how does their concept of language as a whole (speaking, reading, writing, listening) affect their view of the writing process.

When I think about the students in my classroom, I feel they are a microcosm of one of the strengths of the U.S, which is its diversity of experiences. In asking how different Englishes shape composition theory and instruction, I feel like the answers are in their heads and in their actions, in the way they write, how they approach writing and how they change and grow as writers. I’m not so much interested in integrating dialects etc. into their writing. I think that will come naturally as they write more and integrate what they know with what they want to understand and express. It seems to already be occurring. For example, I’m seeing some students use Spanish in their writing.

What am I interested in? I’m interested in seeing how their self-perception and confidence can grow through this writing course–not that they lack self confidence. However, because most of them have said that they don’t read or write extensively outside of school, it seems that their definitions of themselves as writers stems primarily from their school experiences. If this is the case, then the definitions of writing and being a writer should not rely solely on being able to write a narrative or an evaluative paper.

One project that I have been rolling around in my head is to have students compile four readings, which they think would be useful in becoming a stronger reader and writer. In conjunction with this project, they will write an analysis paper (this fits with the standard 101 curriculum). In this paper they will have to analyze: 1) How does a person become a stronger reader and writer? 2) What personal purpose do they have in becoming a stronger reader and writer? 3) What is the value of their selected readings in helping not only them, but their classmates become stronger writers?

Why readings? And not a list of activities for writing? Well I’m still thinking this out so you are a reading a work in progress. First, by the time I assign this project, the students will have read several essays from the textbook and written three papers. I’m interested in knowing how they view the writing process up to this point. What relationship do they see between reading and writing? I also want them to use their strengths and interests to contribute the discussion on what is good writing, what is the writing process and who are they as writers.

Returning to the earlier point of different kinds of English, writing is language. Writing is communication. Having such a rich understanding of the different varieties of English means a rich variety of what it means to write, the form that the writing takes, and the expression that occurs from it.

I am not yet able to articulate what my exact question is. I know I keep repeating several questions throughout this writing. The exact one will come to me. I know because I just had déjà vu.
(after sleeping on it)
I would like my research paper to help inform and understand the previously mentioned project. To open the project I will model by creating a set of readings that will (as of now) revolve around the concept of language as power. Perhaps that will be my number one question: how can the English 101 course use the concept of language as power to guide instruction and give reasons for writing?

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.