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.