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.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, March 19, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
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 :)
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 :)
