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.