Week of 4/29

This week’s articles focus on writing assessment. I will start by saying that this is certainly a topic that I deal with within my own program. The constant chatter is that of assessment. How do we measure achievement in writing?

Huot begins with exactly what the educational system has been dealing with for quite some time: researchers have been struggling with the development of ways to produce reliable and valid means of assessing writing quality. Huot provides a review of the literature that addresses the relatively new way of assessing student writing. Huot emphasizes that the primary means of assessment for quality of writing revolve around two different readers, often English instructors, arriving at a specific quality of rating. I wanted to particularly address this issue as does Huot. As a former high school composition instructor and literature instructor, we had to prepare students for what is known as the high school proficiency exam. These exams are assessed in the same way Huot describes. However, the issue I had, and as Huot points out through the described research is that the raters are often influenced by expectation and the reading process in general. A lot of educational instruction revolves around preparing students for said tests, but when it comes to composition, how is an instructor able to prepare students when ideally multiple factors will no doubt influence the readers. But it seems, as Huot points out, the primary focus of assessment of writing will continue to turn to content and organization. Personally, it would be interesting to see the future studies on how readers arrive at their decisions. Right now, the HS proficiency exam utilizes the IOVC (Ideas, Organization, Voice, and Conventions) rubric to assess their test. As instructors, we were to emphasize this to the students. I still am not sure how I feel about it.

White’s article addresses the scoring of portfolios. He argues that portfolios should not utilize the holistic approach for assessment as portfolios are not designed to be scored that way. Typically, White argues, holistic scoring is used for specific types of writing. Because portfolios primarily are made up of a long term process, the overall reflection from the student about the process should be held in high regard. I actually agree with White in this case because it seems that many college programs and some high school culminating experience programs have shifted their focus to utilizing portfolios as a means of assessment, particularly in the English and education programs. I don’t think that holistic scoring would actually do their long term efforts justice as a means of assessment. White asserts that clear expectations and requirements should be articulated to students from the beginning so students have a clear understanding of the assessment process; reflection playing a large role. I am not actually sure how many of the programs that use portfolios as a means of assessment actually assess them so it would be interesting to investigate this. The Master’s program transitioned into the electronic portfolio process shortly after I graduated so I never got the chance to participate in this process. I have never used portfolios as a teacher, but I can imagine there would be some constraints because of time etc.

Royer and Gilles’s focuses on a nontraditional approach to placing students into remedial courses, specifically that of the freshman comp class. Royer and Gilles suggest that students choose which composition class they feel they need to sign up for based on a self evaluation of their reading and writing ability (directed self-placement). For the most part, this method will no longer point the blaming finger at instructors and English departments if students do not achieve. Essentially, the idea is that students that self-place in the remedial composition courses are people that would have been placed there anyway. Typically students that have a low perception of their abilities, or actually have lower level abilities feel they would need assistance with writing and reading and wouldn’t feel the stigma of been classified as a remedial student; thus, student motivation is less likely negatively affected. I honestly wouldn’t mind see this play out. I think it would be a good idea to test this method in a smaller institution that has more wiggle room to test this theory.

In the Impact of the SAT and ACT timed writing test report, the overall essence was the concern NCTE had about the timed essay portion of the exam. Essentially, NCTE felt that this assessment would not be a good gauge of student writing ability. Ideally this article reiterates the problem that many educators have regarding standardized tests: teachers constantly have to teach to the test. I think the same can be said for the proficiency exam that addressed earlier. Until we have another form of assessment for writing ability or further research, it seems this will continue to be the case.

In the last article, An Apologia for the Timed Impromptu Essay Test, White encourages argues the benefits of the timed essay test. White argues that there is some credibility with these tests because they are actual writings from students rather than standardized multiple choice tests. I think White makes a good point because all too often with standardized test the object of the game is multiple choice everything and although the writing portion is timed and may not be a genuine reflection of student writing, at least it is a glimpse. Plus, graders of these tests take this into account, I hope anyway. Ultimately, like with any other types of assessment, we have to consider the context of the timed essay and what it is these tests aim to assess.

Final Wesbite and Reflection

http://www.nayelee-villanueva.webs.com/


I will start by saying my website is still somewhat a work in progress. Although it is my final website, I feel that I will likely continue to work on it as a progressing professional. At first, I really thought this process would be quite simple, but as I quickly realized that wasn't the case. I am the type of person that obsesses over having to have the "perfect" final product and it seems as with the case of my final paper (a bit off topic I know) that I am primarily concerned with the final product rather than the process. This professional website takes on more of a personal type of writing (essentially writing about myself) which is something that I am not really great at as I don't like talking about myself. I find it more difficult to accomplish than writing academic papers. Not only was I concerned with the written content, but I had to worry about what it would esthetically look like. While I realize there is a whole field in this sort of thing, I often was setting up the site how I would like to see sites, based on my personality (plain, simple, and maybe a bit boring). I am not the type of person that enjoys bells and whistles so to speak. I prefer professional websites to be simple and to the point.

I initially started the process utilizing dreamweaver, but I grew quite frustrated as I am sure the rest of my classmates did. It isn’t to say I did not enjoy the creative aspect of it; I simply did not have the time to dedicate to this specific process. So, I found a web hosting site that already had a premade format to publish my material. I thought this to be the route to go because I could solely focus on the material I was actually placing on the site rather than the material and the process. Again, I wouldn’t have been concerned with the process if I did not have time constraints.

I couldn’t help but think through this website building process how I was more concerned about creating the final product and ideally giving you the instructor what you wanted. I am guilty of doing exactly what I do not want my students to do which is to write to me as the audience. I am not quite sure why I took on this approach…okay maybe I had an idea…I wanted the grade. But, I probably should have focused more on addressing the “real” audience for this site, potential employers. Nevertheless, in the end of all this, I did come out realizing the importance of actually having a professional website. I suppose for the longest time I always told myself I will establish it when I need to. Well, now I need to and I am grateful that I was somewhat forced to do it.

I certainly hope it is of above average quality, but as I mentioned before, I will continue to use it as a my professional website…eventually I will transition to my own domain name…I am betting my name will not be used anytime soon!

Ideology and Pedagogy

This week’s readings focus on critical and cultural studies in pedagogy. I will begin in order and start with Freire’s article focuses on the adult literacy process as means for freedom. In the first half of the article, Freire makes an analogy of the illiterate being that of a person who cannot function “normally” in society. Typically, those that are not “normal” often are classified as marginal. However, Freire stresses that the illiterate are not necessarily marginal because they still belong to something. He argues that if we were to accept the notion of an illiterate man as being a person who exists just outside of society, we must naturally accept the idea of this illiterate man as being a “sick” person who would need literacy as “medicine” to cure him which would in turn, allow him to return to where he came from, now a functioning (normal) member of society. The analogy given here reminds me of the same concepts and principles behind mental institutions. If you are not normal, you need to be fixed in order to return back to society in a functioning manner. Anything that needs to rely on “medicine” particularly that of the literacy type, would essential need to continue to receive it in some manner in order to function.; however, this would be a decision that a person would need to make. Freire argues that rather than teaching adults a process that is mechanical, we should make it available for people to “achieve critical consciousness so that they can teach themselves to read and write.” (p. 627) Essentially, this allows them the freedom of choice, the freedom to decide how they will be a member of society.

Berlin’s article on rhetoric and ideology emphasizes a point that, I think, is fair to say is true. Berlin argues that teaching is “never innocent.” He goes on to stress how pedagogy overlaps with ideology. These two cannot be separated. The point I walk away with here is that whatever agenda that the instructor holds, will no doubt affect their pedagogical practices in one way or another. This reminds me of a discussion we had in another class about incorporating social justice in the curriculum. Although some argue this can happen without bias, I am a firm believer, as Berlin, that there is always some form of ideology present. I can’t help think that all through graduate school we are taught all about theories and theoretical frameworks and eventually are instructed to subscribe to one come dissertation time. How can we not have an ideology when we teach? Berlin argues that if we do not recognize the coexistence of the two, we are essentially irresponsible in our practice. The point, know an ideology exist within pedagogy and understand how it shapes who we are and how we teach. Not always a negative thing, just more responsible. I believe knowing this as an instructor and expressing it to students begins the wonderful journey of critical thinking.

Shor’s article or study was a rather interesting read. Shor uses the work of Freire to ground the decisions for the pedagogical practices used in his classroom. He uses the theme of “work” for the various types of writing they conducted. Shor established a classroom that focuses on the student and their voices. I particularly enjoyed the first day activity…I think I may use that one myself. He uses many of the processes found in the typical writing process, but by the means in which he goes about it makes it unique. Of course because I am the grammar teacher, I was instantly attracted to the way he handled the grammar “situation.” I thought this made an excellent point about how grammar is not necessarily ignored but can be taught through alternative methods, i.e. reading papers orally etc.

Hairston’s article stresses the point that ideology should not be involved in rhetoric or the composition classroom. She asserts that students are not necessarily prepared to handle the magnitude that is involved with ideology. Ideally, students should be learning solely how to write and not necessarily focusing on “loaded” issues. To a certain degree I can see that point, especially from my own experiences teaching freshman composition. It seems that there is an epidemic of students not being able to have the capabilities to critically think let alone handle certain ideologies. However, I think there are ways in which we can incorporate, and probably already do, methods similar to that. Students can start with issues that concern them (of course with proper guidance). It is difficult to say, however. Sometimes I tend to just like the idea of keeping it simple and teaching them how to write. Its all very frustrating :)

Smith’s article on gatekeeping brought me back to our discussions in class about the issue. Smith essentially addresses the notion that we should not really be looking at gatekeeping with a negative connotation, but again being responsible with the power that we possess as college instructors. Students go to college to gain access and we are the means to their goals. Thus, we as instructors need to make conscious decisions about what we teach, how we teach it, and overall how it will affect students in the long run. Grant it, as Smith points out, they will not rely solely on our composition course, but we do play a minor role. Nevertheless, this minor role just might be the one thing they take with them into the future.

Draft of Website

I am posting my professional website link. I am still working on it and should have more published before class on Thursday. Thanks guys!

http://nayelee-villanueva.webs.com/

Theories in Pedagogy

“The test of one’s competence as a composition instructor, it seems to me, resides in being able to recognize and justify the version of the process being taught, complete with all of its significance for the student. “ (Berlin 777)

This week’s readings focus on theories of pedagogy. All of the articles address ways in which we approach or teach composition. I will start with Hillock’s meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies in composition classrooms. Essentially, the meta-analysis aimed to provide an explanation of the variability among the treatments in comparison to that of their effect size. Hillock’s organized the research based on categorizing the treatments. Hillock’s organizes the literature under the categories of mode of instruction, natural process mode, environmental mode, individualized mode, and then the results for these treatments. Additionally, Hillock’s establishes subcategories for the focus of instruction which include grammar and mechanics (naturally), sentence combining, inquiry, and free writing. Hillock’s was able to determine what seems to be quite obvious and a lot of what we have been discussing in class that the dimensions involved in effective instruction are different from what is actually used as practice in the classroom. I would ask why that is, but I think I already know the answer. The findings of the meta-analysis indicate that the most effective mode of instruction is the “environmental” kind. Essentially, this form of instruction joins together the teacher, student and content more closely and thus utilizing all of the resources available in the classroom context. There is a brief discussion about grammar and the overall ineffectiveness of its instruction. I particularly point this out because I have been assigned the daunting task of teaching principles of grammar. While I read the findings presented in this study, and many others I have come across like it, I wonder exactly what the heck is the purpose. My rationale is that it is more of the “scientific” aspect of grammar rather than drilling it in order for my students to become better writers, that isn’t my purpose. I don’t know if I am correct in that manner; nevertheless, I am stuck with the job. We are again reminded that despite the findings of the effectiveness of the different dimensions, there isn’t one sole way of writing instruction. Ideally, there needs to be a combination and balance of the different modes.

Berlin’s article was one that I rather enjoyed reading. The article allows revisiting of the different types of pedagogical theories during the time in which he is writing: Neo-Aristotelians/Classicists, Positivists/Current –Traditionalists, Neo-Platonists /Expressionists, and the New Rhetoricians. Berlin describes the directives of prewriting, writing, and rewriting. However, his main emphasis is that of what he believes to be the most effective approach in pedagogy, the camp of New Rhetoricians. Berlin emphasizes the New Rhetoricians as epistemic in that “knowledge is not simply a static entity available for retrieval. Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a process involving the interaction of opposing elements.” (Berlin 774) Essentially, what is true for one person may not be true for another…essentially epistemology at its finest. One of the points Berlin strongly argues is the notion that composition instructors shouldn’t be solely focusing on instructing students for the composition classroom, but instructing on a way that students “will experience the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it all.” (Berlin 776) As we think about truth and the way we instruct students, we need to think about how we should explore multiple truths….multiple realities.

Breuch article addresses the holes in perspective of that of the post-process approach. Breuch argues that the only reason for post-process theorists to critique process is for the simple agenda of using process as a means to move forward with the argument of postmodern perspectives that are essential for post-process theory. Breuch argues that post-process theory focuses on redefining writing. Essentially, Breuch argues that post-process theory is in fact not pedagogical at all. The implications from her work remind teachers that there needs to be a heightened awareness in our pedagogical practices that in fact meet the needs of the students.

Fulkersons article addresses the issue of composition studies diverging within the last decade. He provides description of the now emphasis on multicultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric. He asserts that there is less of a consensus regarding what should be taught in the composition classrooms as well as what is supposed to be achieved within these courses. More importantly, what is considered to be “effective” instruction. As I read through this article I couldn’t help but think about the field of education and the divergence that exists within the different fields of education. It seems, as Fulkerson puts it, there is a sort of war that takes place as to what is the “right” and “wrong” way of doing things. He says the same about pedagogical theories in composition.

The Down’s article addresses a proposed course for first-year composition students as a writing studies course. The framework of this course revolves around the notion that there is an understanding that there is no universal way of teaching for academic discourse. Ideally, the goal of the course is to essentially become more of a literacy course than writing course. Thus, students will have more of a realistic understanding of the nature of writing. I believe this is the sort of course that could possibly be more effective for students than the traditional English 101 course. Now, I am not saying this type of course should supplant the Eng 101 course, but be an addition to requirements. It is of importance for students to understand writing beyond academic discourse and the modes. Perhaps there will be drastic improvements to the way students not only produce writing, but approach it. Generally, students’ dispositions would change if they were more informed. Of course, the natural problem would exist in that we are faced with the same issues regarding pedagogical theories. What would be the best way to teach this. What exactly would it involve? Would this create more of a divergence in pedagogical studies than already exists? Perhaps…but is it worth it?

Revised Proposal

Responding to Student Writing: Practice and Perception in the Freshman Composition Classroom

Teacher feedback on written assignments in the freshman college composition classroom has continuously raised the question of overall effectiveness of written-teacher commentary on student writing. College composition instructors’ comments on written assignments frequently overemphasize markings of errors in mechanics and grammar rather than constructing feedback that will encourage students to recognize how their written assignments could be improved and also how it should encourage students to become their own editor. Instructors should identify the need to find a balance between the specificity of comments on content and mechanics on students’ written assignments.

Much of the research conducted provides various pedagogical strategies to provide effective written responses to student writing; however, many instructors are not aware of the complex nature of responding to student writing in order to provide a more effective approach to feedback. When instructors aren’t aware of the conflicting practices of feedback on student writing, unintentional negative effects may take place that will leave the student not knowing exactly what changes should be made and how it will improve their writing and writing skill. Additionally, instructors relying solely on surface level written feedback rather incorporating conferencing are putting students at risk to perceive comments purely as negative criticism and allow no room for development in student writing.

The purpose of this presentation is to examine practices in utilizing both written and verbal feedback as a means to respond more effectively to student writing as well as students’ perception of this alternative form of assessment by focusing on the following:
1. Various forms of verbal feedback through conferencing
2. The various levels of conferencing
3. Student perception of conferences
4. The necessary balance between written and verbal feedback



This presentation aims to provide freshman composition instructors with a dual approach to practices in feedback on student writing that will allow instructors to reflect on how they communicate feedback to student writing in relation to how students perceive both written and verbal feedback on writing assignments. From these approaches, freshman composition instructors can begin to determine how much and what they should emphasize based on an established continuum.

This presentation is designed for those that are involved in composition studies and freshman composition instructors. Because students not only produce written assignments in freshman composition, instructors in social sciences and humanities may benefit from this presentation. Audience members will benefit from this presentation by obtaining more effective pedagogical practices in responding to student writing.

Draft Project Proposal

Responding to Student Writing: Theory, Practice, and Perception in the Freshman Composition Classroom

Throughout Daniel B. Willingham’s work on teacher effectiveness of feedback on written assignments, college freshman composition instructors can identify the need to find a balance between the specificity of comments on content and mechanics on students’ written assignments. College composition instructors’ comments on written assignments frequently overemphasize markings of errors in mechanics and grammar rather than constructing feedback that will encourage students to recognize how their written assignments could be improved and also how it should encourage students to become their own editor.

Much of the research conducted provides various pedagogical strategies to provide effective written responses to student writing; however, many instructors are not aware of theories of responding to student writing in order to provide a more effective approach to feedback. When instructors aren’t aware of the theories behind feedback on student writing, unintentional negative effects may take place that will leave the student not knowing exactly what changes should be made and how it will improve their writing and writing skill. Additionally, should instructors not know how to respond effectively to student writing, oversaturation or overly vague comments will leave the student not knowing which direction to take in the writing process.

The purpose of this presentation is to examine theory in student feedback by focusing on the following factors:
1. What instructors know about responding to student writing
2. How instructors communicate feedback to student writing
3. Students reactions to feedback both verbal and written

This presentation aims to provide freshman composition instructors with theories behind pedagogical practices that will allow instructors to reflect on how they communicate feedback to student writing in relation to how students perceive both written and verbal feedback on writing assignments. From these theories, freshman composition instructors can begin to determine how much and what they should emphasize based on an established continuum.

This presentation is designed for those that are involved in composition studies and freshman composition instructors. Because students not only produce written assignments in freshman composition, instructors in social sciences and humanities may benefit from this presentation. Audience members will benefit from this presentation by obtaining more effective pedagogical practices in responding to student writing.

Week of 3/25 -Computers and Composition

The theme of this weeks’ reading revolve around composition and computers. As I read the articles, it was a bit difficult to determine how much of what was discuss has changed since the time of publishing, even Mueller’s article that was published in 2009; technology continues to change and the writing process will change right along with it. I took special interest with these articles because several questions came to mind prior to reading the article: 1) How have I changed as a writer since using word processing programs? 2) How do non-traditional students (older generations) who are accustomed to using pen and pencil for composition differ from those students that know not of a time without word processing programs? 3) How will current and future technologies change the way we teach composition?

I will begin with Sullivan’s article on taking control of the page. Sullivan discusses the waning of what once was a gap between actual writing and the printed page. Because of the closing of this gap, the writers are able to more in control of the published page. Sullivan emphasizes the possible effects of publishing on writers, curriculum, instruction, and readers. Sullivan argues that many instructors of composition have failed to recognize the computer as part of the writing process but rather as an assistive tool for writers and teachers alike. Even as this article was published earlier, many composition instructors today refuse to recognize the computer as part of the writing process. Many of them recognize the computer as a means of publishing written work, but many do not include computers in the writing process (drafting, revising etc). Grant it, a large part of this issue could be because of the lack of computer availability; however, recognition of computer as part of process should still be emphasized. Sullivan quotes Ong regarding technology effect of changing the way we communicate. The possible threats that Sullivan points out is the writer focusing more on the production rather than the process. Because the word processing programs allow for various ways to “present” the product (especially now with the over inundation of options to chose from), writers may very well be focusing more on the ways in which they can produce their work rather than focusing on constructing content. It seems this is the case with most freshman comp students as I have never been able to figure out why they feel if they had a fancier font for their written work and a larger, bolder title, they feel they have produced amazing compositions. It seems they have convinced themselves aesthetically pleasing printed product equals quality writing. Not so much. Sullivan emphasizes the notion that with word processing programs and the like, writers must now produce compositions with skill beyond just writing. Sullivan states, “writers must be able to write text, develop a global logic for documents, devise layouts, draw suitable artwork (if needed), and ‘see’ the grid” (p. 58). Because many writers are now familiar with the technological aspect of word processing programs, the focus then should be on instructing the other skills required in order to use computer as process rather than tool.

Harris’ article focuses on social constructionism and the importance of socially constructed thinking within communities. Harris emphasizes the need to define the roles which technology plays in the teaching of writing; specifically, using technology for pedagogical purposes. The article presents a study that uses an internet-based composition classroom. The findings of the study highlighted how an internet discourse community produced more effective writing and participation in writing. Additionally, perceptions and motivations about writing were more positive than that of the controlled group (traditional composition classroom). Through the use of internet, students were more aware of audience and were able to produce written work more frequently providing more practice in writing. After reading this work, I was actually surprised to find that students were more positively motivated about writing than the traditional classroom. It is far too common to find students perceptions of writing as a tortuous task; however, as I have explained to them time and time again, writing shouldn’t be painful. If technology (internet) is a means in which this will change the perception of writing, I am all for it.

McGee and Ericsson’s article focuses on Microsoft Word’s grammar checker and the overall effects it has on writers and teachers. We are introduced (I think we had some idea already) to the misleading nature MSGC has on students. It is interesting to note the power that this software program has on most writers. Students have relied more on this program than their textbooks and their instructors. It is important to note the widespread usage and reliance of MSGC to “fix” grammatical and mechanical errors. However, many students do not realize as Ericsson points out “MSGC is primarily concerned with prescriptive issues of usage and surface concerns of style.” However, despite whether students are aware or not, it seems it does not matter. Composition instructors need to begin to examine how we can utilize MSGC within our instruction as well as inform students the significant differences between what the grammar checker offers and what might be considered “good” writing.

Howard’s article readdresses plagiarism and the internet. Naturally, the discussion of intertexuality is brought up. Howard stresses how internet plagiarism is addressed without the notion of intertexuality. Thus, composition instructors focus more on finding the plagiarism either through the use of plagiarism detectors or Google searches rather than focusing on the opportunity to turn this issue into a pedagogical issue. Instructors must make connections with students about the theory of intertexuality and provide instruction how to appropriately “weave” ones written work rather than merely copy and pasting if you will. Essentially, the policy makers within the college need to reexamine the way plagiarism is handled. Perhaps the focus should shift more on instructing and addressing plagiarism rather than policing.

Response for 3/18

First, I would like to apologize for my late response, but I was extremely ill and while I could have posted during my “normal” posting times, I was just not functioning in a coherent manner. Now, I will present my blog.

This week’s readings immediately brought me back to my studies in Shakespeare in that reading from the perspective of woman, but more importantly, as the “other” (I believe Tony mentioned this in his blog). Now here is me being a bit self conscious about my post because not only am I the only female in the class, but also the only biracial female. How will this affect my writing, or how has it already affect my writing, I cannot be sure. Nevertheless, this week’s theme/theory naturally runs deep with me and has allowed me to do some thinking in regards to my voice in academia that perhaps I have pushed aside for quite some time.

So I begin. Flynn’s article focuses on Feminism and, as her title suggests, composing as a woman. Flynn discusses the similarities and significant differences in feminist inquiry and composition studies. She stresses, however, that the two have not completely involved themselves with one another. Flynn points out “Feminist research and theory emphasize that males and females differ in their development process and in their interactions with others. They emphasize, as well, that these differences are a result of an imbalance in the social order, of the dominance of men over woman” (P. 573). What we are dealing with here, then, is women’s perspectives/voice that has been marginalized, dare I use the term subjugated. Flynn emphasizes the notion that narratives written by female students are stories of “interaction, of connection, or of frustrated connection” (p. 576). On the other hand, narrative by the male students are mainly stories of “achievement, separation, or of frustrated achievement” (p. 576). Flynn examines narratives of a variety of students, not nearly enough to make a proper assessment, however. But the point that I honed in on was the notion that women’s experiences are not necessarily other version of a male reality. That female writers need to focus on the self and being more aware of their experiences and what those experiences have generated. Then, female writers should write from these experiences and not necessarily that of reading like a man.

Ritchie and Boardman’s article provides a glimpse of the history of feminism in composition. We are presented with the gains made through feminist study in composition, but Ritchie and Boardman point out that there is still much more work that needs to be done. I agree that there isn’t much to be said for the “students’ and teachers’ gendered, classed, or raced position in the academy” (p. 605). As a biracial female composition instructor, I must admit that I have not fully considered how these factors have affected my pedagogy. However, gender roles and racial conditioning in my family probably has left me a complete mess, but on a positive note, I think that I would make a great participant in a study I am sure. But all kidding aside, there needs to be more of examination on the limitations of pedagogy because of these factors.

Royster’s article was a rather interesting article as it focused about discovering “voice.” After I read the article, I immediately returned to the part where the following question was raised: “How can we teach, engage in research, write about, and talk across boundaries with others, instead of for, about, and around them?” (P.620). Quite frankly, the pessimist that I sometimes am, I just don’t see that happening at a large scale. Perhaps I am jaded by my experience in the School District one in which I completely felt who I was was something they did not want present. I wasn’t the “face” nor the “voice” of education. It was a place where multiple perspectives wasn’t the business so to speak. Royster emphasizes the need to work together across boundaries. I can safely say, for now, I have found my “voice” in higher education one in which, and I am thankful, working across boundaries is highly encouraged.

In Villanueva’s article (I must admit it is strange enough in itself to see this last name in an English Composition Theory text), we are presented with the notorious notion of racism. What quickly caught my attention (not that the entire article didn’t) was the numbers/statistics he presented regarding those who are in higher education of specific ethnicities. Apparently, I might be in the 2% he lists. But even then I cannot even say that for sure. As I mentioned earlier in my post, I am a biracial kid. Yes, it is true that I am Hispanic, but it is also true that I am of North African (Tunisian) decent as well. You don’t see that too often so you can imagine how I struggle with identification. Perhaps than, I can be of my own category…or not. Nevertheless, Villanueva emphasizes what I believe will need constant emphasis and that is to “break precedent.” He emphasizes the need to essentially hear what those that are different of the “continent” have to say as they are scholars too. It makes me wonder with my future work for dissertation, will I be taken seriously because I am not the “face” of education.

Silva and Zamel focus on a critical issue that is overwhelming many post-secondary educators, particularly in the composition course. There seems to be this notion that L2 learners will learn how to speak and write English correctly through these composition courses. The issue that Zamel particularly points out is the notion that higher education instructors are battling with the shift in how they once knew how to teach a few years ago. Essentially, the frustration lies as Zamel points out that faculty “feel like strangers in academia, that they no longer understand the world in which they work” (p. 519). As for myself, my own frustrations with L2 students (And for personal reasons I emphasize those that particularly speak Spanish as their first language) may not be the same frustrations as other instructors deal with. The L2 learners that speak Spanish as their first language tend to look at me as their saving grace because their first assumption is that I speak Spanish. When I informed them that I barely speak Spanish, two things happen: 1) they either think that I am lying and I have become a Hispanic who denounces her heritage or 2) What kind of Hispanic am I. It really throws them for a loop when I tell them I speak French. Go figure. Nevertheless, yes it will continue to be frustrating for many instructors as ELL/ESL is something that is unique on its own and many instructors now need to face those challenges in their classroom. So the question here is how it is being handled. More often than not, it’s not being handled at all. Because of the higher education stigma, you should have somewhat of a mastery of basic English speaking and writing (I think this is stated somewhere in most English 101 syllabi’s). Clearly, this isn’t the case especially with more and more open enrollment colleges. Silva and Zamel point out there needs to be change that takes place to some degree and dropping these L2 students at the tutoring center for assistance isn’t solely going to cut it. By not doing anything, we contribute do this whole marginalization business. And so we begin again.

Week of 3/4

This week’s readings focus on the writer’s “audience.” As a composition instructor, I was eager to read these articles because it seems as though we are told from day one that we must write to our audience. Thus, as instructors, we naturally tell our students to write to an audience. But what does that mean? I will start with Ong’s article The Writer’s Audience Is Always Fiction. Ong argues that the writer’s audience is in fact not so much fiction in the original sense, but more of a creation that that allows writers to write to these creations. Essentially, writers must construct an audience that belongs to a specific role established by the writer. On the other end of that coin, however, the writer’s audience must act or behave in the role that has been established by the writer. It seems both of these functions are quite daunting tasks, especially on the part of beginning writers. But how do we, instructors, go about teaching students to develop an audience that play a specific role? Additionally, how will they know if the audience they have developed will take on this role? Again, it seems we must deal with the issue of the “writing for the professor” constraints. However, despite these questions, it almost seems natural for writers to develop a fictitious audience anyway. I believe with beginning writers, it needs to be a process more refined, perhaps a separate course on creating your fictitious audience. Just kidding. While I was reading this article, I was constantly thinking of the concept of intertextuality (I read that article first) in regards to discourse community. Should we be teaching our students to write to a specific discourse community? Would it make it easier for them to develop a more authentic fictional audience (if that even exists)? Perhaps I am just trying to pin point the best way I could communicate the notion of audience to my students.

The Ede and Lunsford article focuses too on audience. Ede and Lunsford emphasize the importance of acknowledging the many roles that exist both for the audience that is addressed and the audience that is invoked. Additionally, the authors suggest that when considering the audience, the writer must consider the rhetorical situation, or as Ede and Lunsford point out in Corbett’s model, the “The Rhetorical Interrelationships.” The model represented stresses the notion that interrelationship in writing naturally exists; therefore, writers must acknowledge this. One salient point made by Ede and Lunsford is without readers for writers we would not have communication.

Porter’s article on intertextuality was very enlightening for me and I rather enjoyed it. As I was reading the article, I couldn’t help but constantly think about how the concept that Porter presents is not plagiarism. However, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Then, as my mind constantly tries to make connections, I went back to the argument of is writing a science or an art. In the context of this piece, Porter certainly makes it clear (whether he intended to or not) it is quite artistic, or so at least I think. Porter explains how intertextuality transitions from the writer as an individual to the writer writing is all about craft and the ability to focus more on the “social contexts from which the writer’s discourse arises.” (35) Porter discusses intertextuality as discourse that is developed of various pieces of other texts that help determine its meaning. He provides the example of the Declaration of Independence and how it was constructed based on this exact notion. He moves on to discuss discourse community. Essentially, text is only acceptable if it “belongs” within the specific discourse community. Lastly, Porter discusses intertextuality and the relationship with pedagogy. Porter suggests that the goal of writing instructors is to not so much focus on brining out of the “within”, but rather teaching students how to communicate socially with writing. My first question was how can we accomplish this task? Porter offers some suggestions for assignments and I particularly favored the research assignment. This makes writing not only real to students, but socially involved, and within a discourse community.

To build on the latter point, Bruffee addresses the collaborative learning model. Bruffee suggests that in order for students to become a real part of academia, it is important to be able to communicate. Bruffe argues that collaborative learning creates an environment that would allow students to realize that writing is not so much of an individual task, but more of a social context. As a doctoral student of education, collaborative learning is a method that I constantly work with. Typically, however, collaborative learning is often utilized in the literature classroom, usually through discussion circle or literature groups (so many names). However, collaborative learning in a composition classroom is typically identified as workshops or peer editing. This notion, as Bruffee points out, can potentially have negative effects. What is it exactly are they doing when they are peer editing? Just to add, Trimbur also discussed the negative effects of collaborative effort. Just like in any cooperative effort, an organizational structure no doubt exists and within these structures certain roles are assumed whether it is known or not. Thus, as Trimbur points out, voices may be silenced by fear or rejection. Bruffee suggests in order for collaborative learning to be effective an environment needs to exist to support it. As Director of the tutoring center, I try to create this environment with my writing tutors and the students that visit with them. I still have to figure out if it’s working :)

This week’s readings, I must admit, was a bit overwhelming for me. Nevertheless, there are salient points that are addressed that revolve around the notion of writing as technology and the cognitive process theory of writing.

I will start by addressing Ong’s article “Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought.” Of the articles, this was one I particularly enjoyed reading mostly because it is a notion that I have not ever considered, especially within today’s context in which we use the term “technology.” Ong contends that writing is essentially a technological tool as a means to communicate. However, in regards to orality, Ong addresses Plato’s view on writing as an intrusion much like the way we view computers as an intrusion to the written language, in some cases anyway. I did enjoy the analogy Ong used regarding how people need instruments in order to make music. Although humans have the ability to think about the way they would like the music to sound as well as the ability to plot the notes to create the sound, the sound could never be produced without the instrument or technology for that matter. Similarly, although humans have the ability to express themselves orally, they may not be able to express the same ever again. Ong made an interesting point about orality and the written word being permanent. Although the written word is permanent, at least we will never lose the original thought that was made because writing is far removed from the source (although this can be good and bad as he points out about burning books). With orality, when one speaks, if it isn’t understood by the audience or whomever is listening, the speaker may never really say the exact same thing he or she said initially; it is often what they perceive they said or what they feel the listener needs to hear. This may be a little off topic, but this notion reminds me of matters dealing with the consciousness and the bicameral mind as discussed in Julian Jaynes’ book, but that’s another matter, which, oddly enough, leads me to my next point about this week’s readings, the cognitive process theory.

The Flower article raises an important question regarding the writing process: “What guides the decisions writers make as they write?” Flowers’ article addresses four key points of the cognitive process theory essentially revolving around how writers organize during composing, the hierarchical structure within a structure, composition as goal driven, and the hierarchy within the goal development process. What I found to be fascinating, not because I never knew we utilize a think aloud process when we write sometimes, but to actually see it as a means of determining how people compose text when using the this model. The one point Flower points out in regards to the hierarchical sub process is the plan, translate, and review process. I think it is important to address how we should not define “revision” as only one stage of the composing process, but rather a process that can occur at any point in time. This is essential for beginning writers to realize especially since, as we know, they have been conditioned to believe it as a single, one time only stage.

Bizzell’s article attempts to answer the question about what we need to know about writing. Bizzell discusses the two theories of composition in the classroom one in which composition specialist perceive writing as a language-learning and thinking process before social influence (inner-directed) and the other as primarily a social process (outer-directed) in which language-learning and thinking is shaped by and use in specific communities. Bizzell contends that in order for the writing classroom to be effective, it is important to utilize both the inner and outer-directed approach. Moreover, she feels it is important to find patterns of discourse from all communities in order to assist students in transitioning to academic discourse. Ultimately, the belief that in order for students to address a specific writing situation, especially in academia, it is important for students to be capable of “cognitively, sophisticated thinking and writing.”

Kellogg’s emphasizes the need to acknowledge writing that involves multiple processes. Essentially what I took away from this article is the major difference between beginning writers and mature writers is the ability to determine whether or not and how the reader will be able to interpret the text. Kellogg contends that there are severe limitations that hinder the ability for beginning writers to develop the actual skill of writing. In order for these beginning writers to move from lower level to advanced writing, it is essential these writers receive not only training, but be able to utilize their knowledge. As I was reading this article, I couldn’t help but think about my field regarding teaching effectively. The argument is in order to be an effective teacher one must incorporate practical knowledge in addition to training. I am pretty sure there is no real direct connection, but I think there can be some similarities with this notion. In order to be an effective writer, one must have formal training and practical knowledge.

Week 6 Blog

This week’s readings focus on the role of grammar in the composition classroom and teachers’ response to student writing. Of all the topics I am completely frustrated with is that of the role of grammar in the classroom. The unending battle between the older traditional belief that grammar is imperative in order for students to be great writers, or speakers for that matter versus the more modern approach of those that believe grammar serves very little purpose in improving student writing. Quite frankly, it seems that most articles that are produced often, as Hartwell points out, is designed to prove why their argument about grammar instruction is “right.” I did appreciate Hartwell’s article, however, mostly because it focused on the issues that revolve around this battle. Hartwell does a good job of clarifying the various classifications of grammar. He does reiterate at the beginning of his article that he does not attempt to prove whether one side of the argument is right or wrong, but discusses the understanding behind the various grammar classes.

Connor’s article focuses on the history of grammar, mechanics, and correctness. As we have read in previous articles, Connors reminds us of the traditional composition classroom focusing on rhetoric. Connors emphasizes the radical shift that took place during the 1870’s where composition courses could no longer focus on the “mental discipline” and move toward instructional goals that revolved around mechanical correctness than overall effective communication. Connor quotes Kitzhaber as he reemphasizes the radical change revolving more around the shift from “socially acceptable” to “formally acceptable.” It became apparent via the Harvard examinations that beginning writers’ written troubles lie with mechanical problems. Yet again, we battle with what is considered to be “good” and “bad” writing. In this case, Connor emphasizes how “good” writing was to be considered writing that was essentially error free. Connors addresses probably one of the major factors for grammar being the sole focus of teacher response. He discusses the issue with instructors not being able to provide authentic feedback for students due to the large number of classes. Instructors were required to ready at least 100 essays and were expected to provide feedback to improve writing. Naturally, as Connors points out, instructors became overwhelmed with the work and teacher feedback soon became marks on grammar and mechanical errors.

As I mentioned my frustration earlier, it is only because I am required to teach a purely composition course. With little guidance, I struggle with what might be the most effective ways to in fact teach the course. More importantly, as I stood up in front of soon to be high school teachers, I constantly thought to myself what were these teachers going to do with this information and I already knew the answer. They were going to use this grammar “stuff” to mark and circle the errors on their soon to be students’ essays. Was contributing to this epidemic? Possibly. The only action I could take was to remind them that these were only guidelines and they should consider language correctness and language appropriateness.
Regarding teacher responses to writing, Sommers’ article focused on the ineffectiveness, at times, of teacher feedback. She points out how many teacher responses include two different tasks that oppose one another: correct the fixed finite piece; yet, also fix the piece that is evolving. Sommers also address teacher comments that seem to be “rubber stamped.” From the samples she provides, she is able to identify how many of the comments that are written can be applied to just about any essay. Essentially, many teacher comments seem to be ineffective unless they actually engage with the text. Also, it is noted that many of the teacher comments seem to revolve around more what the instructor feels the purpose of the essay is rather than the students. Thus, we continue to find the common trend of students writing to the professor as audience. As my dissonance blog points out, I plan to continue to investigate the effects of teacher responses. The Connors and Lunsford article incorporate a study and analysis of teacher comments and utilize this piece as a starting points for my paper.

Dissonance Blog

After pondering my topic for the dissonance paper, I finally buckled down and decided to focus on one specific area that is in line with this week’s assigned readings. While I haven’t completely generated a definite research question(s), I do know what I would like my paper to address. I would like to focus my research on responding to student writing. After careful reflection of this idea, I discovered I have been more involved with response of student writing because of my personal experiences, my teaching experiences both past and present, and through general conversations with other instructors about responding to student writing.

As I reflected back on my own writing both at the high school and college level, I discovered my writing, based on teacher feedback, ranged from “great writing” to “needs improvement.” In high school, my teacher responses on my writing were almost nonexistent. If I did happen to receive comments on my essay, they would include the standard editing marks that addressed my grammar and mechanics mistakes. However, as I can recall, they did nothing for me as my main concern, as it is with many students, was the grade that was found on the very last page. I am not quite sure why they never really provided commentary on my page, but being a student, I feel I probably would have benefited from it as a young writer.

It wasn’t until I entered into college that I actually began receiving feedback on my college papers. Grant it, the comments I generally received only were done in my composition and literature courses. My first year English 101 instructor approached student feedback in two ways: 1) direct response on my essays, and 2) He would post papers on the overhead and respond /critique the paper in front of the whole class. To be quite honest, the latter really prompted me to do well (probably because I hate looking like an idiot). In this class, the responses I received ranged from grammar and mechanics to more of organization and coherency type feedback. Again, I never really received comments or suggestions about different ways to approach the paper, or points to consider regarding my content etc.
During the latter part of my undergraduate career, I had a unique experience with two courses I was taking simultaneously: I was taking an intermediate composition course and an upper division literature course. Throughout the duration of these courses, we had to write the same amount of essays; however, one was obviously literary analysis and the other was more along the lines of the modes. Needless to say, the comments and grades I received for both courses illustrated some stark differences. In my literature course, I received more praising comments and hardly any negative comments in regards to grammar and content. In my composition course, I struggled to barely receive a B on my assignments. I received much feedback, which was quite helpful, but I wasn’t sure if it was because of the structure of the essays or if the comments that were being presented were just not clicking for lack of a better phrase.
My teaching experiences include teaching at the high school level and at the college level. Composition instruction (instruction on the process of writing) is predominantly found at the freshman level. Traditionally, the process of writing is not taught beyond that as the main focus of the curriculum is on literature and literary analysis. When writing is taught, it becomes quite cumbersome to respond to student writing when dealing with 170+ students. Therefore, it either did not occur or the responses were short and probably not helpful at all.

In my third year of teaching, I was assigned a sole composition course. Typically, the curriculum for this course was quite rigorous and was designed to prepare students for college level writing because this course is taken at the senior level. Despite this fact, the composition course was treated as a dumping ground for students that were far below the senior writing level. In fact, many of the students that were “dumped” into this composition course were students that could barely construct a sentence let alone an essay. In essence, what was supposed to be an intermediate composition course turned into a fundamentals writing course. Unfortunately, there was little room to provide the kind of teacher feedback that was necessary to elevate writing. A majority of the feedback that I provided was more structured base rather than content based. At this point, students were accustomed to receiving grammar and mechanics type feedback because this was what they knew how to respond to.

In my transition to college composition instruction (Freshman Composition), I quickly identified students that were accustomed to developing essays that followed the 5-paragraph model. They too were preoccupied with the notion that errors only consisted of grammar and mechanics. My responses to my students’ writing attempted to avoid, as much as I could, marking for grammatical errors and provided comment sheets attached to their essay. Many of my comments consisted of more questions than anything else and the occasional “why,” and “elaborate.” Based on my observations and students’ reactions upon reviewing their comments, most students quickly glanced over the comments and noted the grade. It is difficult to say why comments are taken into consideration, but I am betting most students overlook the comments or do not take them into consideration because as Murray points out, instructors do not know what they are talking about. I suppose this could be my fault just the same, or any instructors for that matter. What do we in fact do to ensure that students actually understand the comments made or where we were coming from? How do we know whether our students even know how to correctly make change when considering the comments? It seems most instructors, including myself, assume the students will just “get it.” An individual conference with the students is one way we could ensure students understand comments and are applying them. However, most student conferences do not occur until the end of the semester when it is too late. We could easily rely on our keen observation skills to see if students are applying our suggestions. However, it is difficult to determine whether students are applying critical thinking to their writing, but it is easier to determine whether students are making the same grammatical mistakes.

I hope the research I am able to find on teacher responses will shed some light on whether it is in fact worth the time to respond to student writing. Also, I am attempting to find whether the research shows if teacher response to student writing is in fact effective and how it is determined if it is effective or not. How is teacher response and student performance/product measured?

Posting for 2/11

This week’s articles have been, to some extent, a motivational tool as I am in my 5th week of teaching composition. And as I progress through this course, I have found myself consistently reflecting on the way I have taught composition and the past, and, more importantly, I am constantly thinking about the way I am currently teaching my composition course. The articles this week focused on teaching writing and writing as a process. And although these articles can somewhat be considered older, the message still rings true today: teaching composition should be more of a focus on process rather than a final product.

Murray’s article, Teaching Writing as A Process Not Product, explains in a very passionate and convincing way, how it is far too common that many teachers of composition have been trained to teach writing as creating a final product. This is in large part due to teachers being trained to do so. And since teachers generally teach the way they have been trained, a viscous cycle continues to run rampant across many beginning composition courses. Murray emphasizes how focusing on the overall product often fails us in our mission to actually teach writing to students. Thus, he states that the actual writing process is far too complicated to teach resulting in teaching product as a failure. Essentially, if the writing process is taught, the actual result would be products “worth” reading. He addresses a key question that would naturally be asked: What is the process that should be taught.” Murray illustrates his answers by elaborating on three main components of the writing process: prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Murray suggests that the prewriting stage is by far the most important and the most time consuming for students. If this is the case, why then does it work. Murray states that the prewriting stages “includes the awareness of his world from which his subject is born” (p 4). And, as anyone that is involved with writing and the writing process knows this is no easy feat. Murray attempts to answer the question on how instructors of composition can motivate students to engage in this writing process, and on several occasions. Murray suggests instructors to, for the most part, forget what they have been taught in regards to constant criticism and learn to be more active listeners. Instructors need to provide responses from a reader’s perspective rather than a professor’s perspective. Ideally, Murray implies rather than being instructors of composition, we should become more coaches of composition. Murray lists 10 implications for teaching the writing process rather than the product. Murray asserts the implications should be more student centered rather than teacher centered. Students should be able to examine their own writing and the writing of their peers or classmates. Students should be allowed to determine their own subject otherwise they begin writing toward the professor’s truth rather than their own. Murray continues by suggesting students have the opportunity to use their own language. After all, it is their creation. The ability to write multiple drafts and be given the time to write multiple drafts is part of the process students can benefit from. Additionally, absolute truth should not exist, as the postmodernists exclaim, because with writing, there should only be alternatives, no infinites.
Murray’s article is filled with some valid points that make quite a bit of sense. The message seems to resound within this article and others that in order to make “this” work, this thing we call composition instruction, the instructor needs to be open to the possibility.

Peter Elbow’s article mirrors that of Murray’s. We once again read about the discussion of “truth” in writing. Elbow focuses on writing as producing a desired effect on the reader, ideally what writing should do. Elbow states that whether instructors or writers know it or not, people write to make people respond in specific ways. He suggest that instructors use this fact and work with it. Much of what Elbow suggests is similar to that of Murray, or I should say it is the other way around. Elbow, among others, emphasizes student centered approach as well. He encourages students to read works written by other classmates both “bad” and “good” writing. If students are to only examine “good” writing, how they will know what “bad” writing consists of. Typically, students will assume their own writing to be “bad” writing. Elbow explains how often times, students are required to start from scratch every time they enter a composition classroom solely because the instructor establishes a standard for them to meet. How will they meet the needs of the instructor this time? The natural question, then, how will students ever really learn writing if they are constantly resetting. The part I truly enjoyed about this piece, and probably something I will try with my own students, is the exercise that student be asked to write a piece that will not be judged on whether the writing makes sense or if the assertions are consistent, but whether the audience or reader “feels” the writer shine through his or her words. Is their writing believable? Again, as many of these articles suggest, this course of teaching requires one to be more open and requires trust that students will be more willing to create pieces of work rather than work created for the professor.

Janet Emig’s article is an important one as it breaks down the difference between writing, talking, and reading. We get learn through this article the connection between learning and writing. The main emphasis we get about writing as a process is that through writing, one engages in the process of learning through doing, depicting and image, and restating what we learned. Emig emphasizes how writing is the most basic functioning form of the brain. We are introduced to the various ways in which writing is intertwined with psychology. In essence, according the Emig, writing creates meaning.

The Perl’s and Sommers’ article are both case studies that focus on two different parts of the writing process. Perl’s study focuses on how unskilled writer’s write and what the results say about the way in which writing is taught. What was found through this case study was the patterned behavior illicted by the students which included utilizing the standard prewriting, writing, and editing process. This was surprising for researchers as they did not expect this type of pattern. The researchers suggest that although students were engaged in more process than product, students should not be considered completely beginning writers, and students should not be assumed as proficient writers either.

Sommers’ case study focused on the revision process in order to determine what role the revision process played in the actual writing process. Sommers’ study found how inexperienced writers approached revision and how more experienced writers approached revision. One interesting point I found with this research is students’ attitude and use of the term revising/revision. The study found that many of these students did not actually refer to the revision process by using this term. Instead, students stated that their instructor had used this term. The participants in the study used terms like reviewing, re-doing, and marking out. The study found that the inexperienced writers, while revising, were most concerned with repeating themselves. With the experienced writers, the research found that they actually used the term revision and rewriting as opposed to the aforementioned terms. The main concern for these experience writers was “reshaping their argument.” Again, we are reminded through these two studies how students need to seek to make better for their own writing and not of what they feel is expected of their writing.

Again, I must admit I did enjoy this week’s readings because as mentioned through the various articles, that writing and language must come alive. Writing must have a purpose and truth for each individual author/student. It must be made real to them. As instructors, we often need to remind ourselves that like anything that is worthwhile; it takes time and generally is a process. Although we may face many barriers that stop this from occurring: ourselves, laziness, politics, class sized etc., the only way we will make teaching writing more effective is to let the process of writing take its course, whatever that may be.

Week 4 Blog

This week’s readings focused on remedial writing and perceptions of remedial composition courses as well as some insight on the stereotypes of remedial writing and some points about pedagogical issues revolving around the freshman composition course. Also, the articles addressed points about cognition and perceptions of writing and the various approaches to writing. And lastly, the infamous topic of plagiarism is discussed. Rose’s article, The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University¸sets us up for the remainder of the articles. We are given a brief history of the role of remedial writing courses similar to that of the readings a couple of weeks ago. One line that truly stood out to me, more bothersome than anything else, is the quote by the UCLA dean referencing students in remedial English courses, “the truly illiterate among us.” Rose emphasizes the various definitions of literacy and how they are examined. Unfortunately, various factors are not considered when it comes to defining what literacy; thus, many students are deemed, technically, illiterate. Rose references Shaughnessy’s article in regard to the perception of remedial course and the emphasis to revisit remedial writing reformation. The cause for reform, Rose explains, will be that of a difficult one because unlike reading, writing requires much more of the student. A good example of the reformation suggestion can be seen in Goen-Salter’s article. Goen-Salter’s article examines a remedial writing program that deems more beneficial for students than the standard two semester long writing courses. The article examines the success rate of students that have participated in this experimental program.

Shaughnessy’s article Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing. I must admit that prior to reading the article, I assumed this piece would focus more about what is addressed in basic writing courses, but I was pleasantly surprised to find more of a classification of the various phases that basic instructors go through along their journey through what is called remedial composition courses. Although quite comical at times, Shaughnessy touches upon some excellent points regarding instructor perception of students in basic writing courses. One of the points made is that of the instructor discovering through the first submitted essays that the students in the course are far more behind than anticipated. The quick assumption, then, is this particular group of students and students similar to them will never really be successful in college. Shaughnessy quickly points out the pedagogical issues that are faced when instructors stumble upon this discovery. Although I agree with Shaughnessy’s point that some instructors create a sort of “demoralizing contest” between the teacher and student, I do not agree that all instructors create this environment. I began to think of how I struggle with the notion from time to time about how I will approach the various levels of students in the composition course I teach. It seems to me that this cycle Shaughnessy illustrates is common each new composition course the instructor must teach. If this is the case, which I believe it is, then the ultimate answer is that the instructor must consistently change their teaching style and content. Thus, although I am getting out of order here, is what Shaughnessy points out as her last stage of discovery “Diving In.”Composition instructors need to adapt and make constant change in order to be effective in the teaching and learning process. Shaugnessy also discusses the Converting the Natives process which involves the notion that there are in fact some students that can be taught the complicated practice of writing at the college level. However, this process only lasts for so long. The students learn, adapt, and forget…or possibly get lazy. It is difficult to measure the “why” in this scenario. This processes Shaughnessy describes is one that will continue to exist, especially for those that are not aware of the vast array of learning and writing ability that land in these courses; thus, “diving in” seems quite appropriate.

The Bartholomae’s and Rose’s work (Narrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive Reductionism) share many of the same points. Bartholomae’s work addresses some points that are key to understanding the writing process from the perception of the student. Although, I wouldn’t exactly say perception, but rather what in fact occurs with remedial student writers. Bartholomae points out the overwhelming demands from the various “schools” at the university. The need to write in order to adhere to the various types of writing a student will encounter throughout their academic career. The article emphasizes the cognitive process as a one that might be difficult for remedial writers. Bartholomae cites Flower and Hayes by explaining how a writer might approach solving a problem. “It is rooted in the way the writer’s knowledge is represented in the writer’s mind. The problem resides there, not in the nature of knowledge or in the nature of discourse but in a mental state prior to writing ( p. 629). I believe this is the crux of both Bartholomae’s and Rose’s article. Instructors of remedial writers need to think about the cognitive process in remedial writers, asking the question why might these students write the way they do. Essentially, remedial writers must move beyond the “habits of the mind” that might have been employed on them throughout the course of their writing career. Remedial instructors need to focus on what shapes these writers to writer what they do and how they do. This notion leaves a bit a frustration on my part because it’s almost as though we must be experts of cognition prior to teaching remedial writing courses.

Zwagerman’s article on Plagiarism was rather interesting and continues the discussion on academic integrity. This article focuses on the various motivations as to why students engage in academic dishonesty through writing and the overall various effects on instructors, departments, and institutions take. Zwagerman offers various suggestions to ameliorate academic honesty, but at the same time the pitfalls that may occur with them. For instance, Zwagerman suggests more collaborative work during lessons, but points out how “it places all students in a conflicted context that praises individuality yet acts to contain the individual within ‘managed structures” (p. 697). Essentially, it seems academic dishonesty is inevitable no matter the ramifications employed by colleges and universities. Nevertheless, it isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be an initial trust factor.

Week 3 Blog

“Language is a mode of action rather than a mode of knowledge.” Words said by Kenneth Burke on what impacts invention. Prior to reading these articles, I always knew rhetoric played a large role in composition. In fact, as a composition instructor myself, I have always emphasized the role rhetoric plays when creating writing. I have known rhetoric to traditionally involve five standard tenants: 1) the author 2) the purpose 3) the audience 4) context 5) topic. Upon reading Burke, I was fascinated to learn of the Pentad as a strategy for the interpretation of motivation for actions in text. Essentially, Burke emphasizes invention that includes dramatism (language as symbolic action). The five interpretive terms he uses are as follows: act, agency, agent, scene, purpose, and later adding attitude. Looking at invention from this perspective suddenly made sense to me. Rhetoric essentially is all around us as emphasized in all of the assigned articles. In the article Issues of the Nature, Purpose, and Epistemology of Rhetorical Invention in the Twentieth Century, we find a list of contributors to the art of rhetorical invention. What I gathered from the majority of the contributing scholars is that they all challenged the notion of logic and certainty. These theorists believed that rhetoric was vital because it focused on language as thought and a means to understand. They posited that the process of questioning is important in order to reach new meanings and new levels of knowledge. As McKeon points out, invention is “the art of discovering new arguments and uncovering new things by argument.” The more I read about the theory behind rhetoric, I found myself agreeing more and more with it in regards to writing. The articles point out that traditionally, there really wasn’t a place for rhetoric in the Freshman English class. Typically, rhetoric was to be found under the communications department. It isn’t to say that rhetoric did not belong in the communications classroom, but we must consider rhetoric as language and the psychology of language as whole whether it be verbal or written. As Corbett defines rhetoric “the art or discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience, whether that audience is made up of one person or a group of persons” If this is the case, why then did it take so long to incorporate it into the freshman composition classrooms? Why is it still not being utilized in freshman composition courses? What is it exactly do we want our students writing about? The article states the Mid-Twentieth Century found Freshman English to focus on the application of rhetoric and not the discipline itself. But I actually wonder how instructors can only focus on the application and not the discipline? What was actually being produced and actually measured?

According to the Lauer text, many of the freshman compositions focused on the structures/patterns of writing rather than on rhetoric (narration, cause-effect, etc). I suppose my question could be answered by referencing Rohman’s point “All we have done, in fact, is to give them (students) standards by which to judge the goodness or badness of their finished effort. We haven’t really taught them how to make that effort.” Rhetoric provides that opportunity for students to move beyond the finished effort and focus more on how they got there. As I teach my freshman composition course, I find many students battling with always having to perfect the final product and focusing on what the professor wants to see. I find myself frequently reminding the students to continue to question and establish a state of inquiry for their potential writings. As Lauer points out about the heuristic procedure: “a series of questions or operations to guide inquiry in order to retrieve relevant information, draw attention to missing information, and prepare for intuition. I feel, I often lose that battle. How and when will this change?

Campbell’s focus is that of persuasion within writing and speaking. On the other end of the bickering spectrum of rhetoric, we have George Campbell and his focus on the manipulation of language in order to meet a desired need. Campbell argues that “rhetoric that relies on induction for arriving at truth is not concerned with brining appropriate arguments to bear on the issue at hand.” He believes that rhetoric acts as a sort of road block when it comes to discovering truth. He believes to seek truth one must observe. He states that rhetoric is concerned with “shaping the message.” Although this may be the case, I would like to believe, and I certainly hope I am partially right, that observation does in fact play a role within rhetoric. We create questions through rhetoric and in order for a writer to answer them they must begin by being an observer. Would it be safe to say some of the best writers might in fact be the best observers?
To dove tail off of my previous point, or Campbell’s I should say, is the Corbett article; here we find the art of persuasion within rhetoric in advertising. I actually laughed a bit when I read this article because of my fascination with the advertising companies manipulating language in order to meet a desired need: to buy their product. I suppose I have an ambivalent perception about these advertising companies because on one end, I highly respect their ability to utilize rhetoric and manipulate language in a way that is almost artful. On the other end, I almost see it as being irresponsible with the power that language has. Nevertheless, rhetoric according to Corbett is definitely present and can be broken down line by line, including any images. Rhetoric is creation for whatever purpose or discipline. It is the way we communicate and in essence create a community of sorts. I believe as an instructor of freshman composition, it is my job to not only focus on the traditional methods of writing instruction, but to also include the discipline of rhetoric. How can we create without motivation?

Composition History- Blog for Week 2 Readings

Composition History
The assigned readings for this consisted of a variety of topics. However, the main focus was the evolution of composition studies, specifically at the college freshman level. The article Writing Into the 21st Century, lists some specific research questions within the study that I feel represent the crux of the development of composition studies. Some of these questions include the following: What are the general problems being investigated by contemporary writing researchers? Which of the various problems dominate recent writing research, and which are not as prominent? What population age groups are prominent in recent writing research? What is the relationship between population age groups and problems under investigation? and What methodologies are being used in research on writing? Although researchers address various questions, the same questions is no doubt being addressed “what are the current trends in research on writing?”

Composition studies at the college level were a response to the “crisis” of the 1970’s. Because many universities at the time adopted open enrollment, many of the universities discovered the decline in academic success rates. The conversation on what the nature of the composition course should look like took on many avenues; however, in regards to relying on the research to define what the composition course should look like needed to rely on a solid theoretical framework, which at the time, was non-existent. What developed were four main schools of thought that entailed the writer, reality, audience and language. The main focus for developing composition studies included fostering thinking and creativity through the written word. So, why composition studies? Due to the open enrollment newly adopted at the universities, there was a need to distinguish between the better students and the good students. Thus, colleges allowed for the emergence of composition courses through the English department. During the 1980’s, new empirical based methods combined with theoretical conceptions and thus refined composition studies. Refereed journals became more prominent as the need for composition studies research evolved. Composition was treated as a completely separate entity like literature, linguistics, and general writing.

The question is then raised, what sort of content was found within these traditional composition courses. During the formalist period in 1950, much of the composition content focused on the traditional five paragraph format. Oddly, it is much of what we see instructed in today’s classrooms at the high school level. However, as more research developed, there was a response to this formalist period by developing a New Critical premise: The focus was to read and analyze text, not just write. This new Structuralist movement shifted the focus from the overall product of writing to focusing more on the process of writing. This new focus was aimed at revising and drafting rather than just focus on the structured type of writing. Ideally, one can look at this movement as getting away from writing as being an individual task to a more social process. This movement resulted into more process than anything else. Writing was to be looked at as an act that added to society and to bodies of knowledge and literature.

One other factor that was touched upon was the cognitive to the socio-cognitive. I find this to still be true of today’s composition students. The way students approach writing ultimately affects the way they construct their writing. It seems there will always be the stigma of the perception about writing will determine their process and overall product of their composition. With this being said, the natural question, then, is what should be taught in the English composition courses. Now that we are in the 21st century, it would seem that composition instruction and curriculum should have evolved from the formalist era. However, many researchers have found that not much has changed in composition instruction. Many of the composition courses include the same components or tenets that of high school curriculum. Students are generally required to write an essay, they are introduced and drilled on grammar, and they generally read some literature that provides an example of the types of writings in which they should be modeling. It is argued that the intellectual level in which composition is taught is relatively low. Standards are typically lowered because the thought is that students needing composition instruction at the freshman level need more assistance, especially with the open enrollment colleges and universities. Composition courses, according to researchers, should be a bit more rigorous, but specific initiatives should be taken in order for this to happen. Kitzhaber suggests that two main changes occur: 1) Help high schools in with the teaching of composition. This could take place through better teacher education and refine curriculum. 2) Completely restructure English composition programs at the college level.

The 21st century brings on many resources, specifically technological resources, which could be used to restructure the way composition instruction is practiced. Yancey suggest that different mediums be used for making writing real to students through “circulation.” Yancey states “As they movie from medium to medium, they consider what they move forward, what they leave out, what they add, and for each of these write a reflection in which they consider how the medium itself shapes what they create. (p 314) A shift and change in composition instruction is essentially the theme across the readings. Like anything else there is a history, but it is important to understand that time and context change and it is necessary for things to adapt. In this case, the need to adapt and utilize tools to make this change occur is something that definitely needs to occur.