I’ve never really thought about this issue, though now that I have, it seems rather significant. Typically, I try to teach grammar during the writing process, but I have not realized how much grammar “instruction” my students are already receiving through MSGC. The idea that “Microsoft gets more ‘teachable moments’ than English teachers do” is striking (455). Secondary English teachers typically have roughly an hour each day to spend working with their students, and because the topics that need to be covered include literature, writing instruction, vocabulary, and more, grammar instruction often receives limited attention.
McGee and Ericsson make some very insightful points, but what stands out to me the most is the seeming invisibility of the grammar checker. On the most recent versions many mistakes, like common spelling errors, are automatically made for the user. The authors also make the point that for many students, when they see the red or green squiggly line they just accept the first corrections without even acknowledging or considering the issue on hand (462). It seems that this technology, like many others, is enabling students and catering to their increasing laziness. One of the great things about technology is that it fosters convenience, but the danger is that dependence on it breeds stupidity.
The other important thing to realize is that MSGC is not may be “constraining the choices of the novice writer” (458). Students often use this technology and think that if they make all the corrections that they are prompted to, then they have a great paper. However, no consideration is given to voice, style or the ideas of the composition. McGee and Ericsson do not hide their contempt for MSGC, yet they show even more disdain for prescriptive grammar and the current traditional rhetoric. Unfortunately, students don’t know any better than to “accept the authority of this smart machine to police their grammar, just as they have heretofore accepted the authority of their smart teachers” (463). I don’t believe that a grammar checker is necessarily pure evil, but I do accept the authors’ charge that it is crucial to be more aware of this technology, that current best practice in writing and grammar is social, and that questioning this technology with students may be an effective teaching strategy.
31.1.09
28.1.09
Teaching Philosophy
Teachers of composition have gotten the shaft from the very early days of secondary and higher education in America. The primary focus for some time has been on syntax, structure, and the conventions of the English language. There have been voices since the beginning calling out for emancipation from this confining approach, but not enough to make a real change.
Composition instruction is currently the under-glorified workhorse of the English department.
Teachers receive little recognition next to their literature or theory based publishing counterparts. Different universities have different focuses when it comes to teaching writing, and Stewart identified three: Expressivism, Critical/Cultural Studies, and Procedural Rhetoric. The “current-traditional” rhetoric has come under fire by many, because of its focus on usage and formulaic structure. Fulkerson would agree with Stewart that “Composition has become much more complex” (679). The focus of English studies shifted in the 1990s according to Jeffrey Williams from criticism to theory. Now that theory has become the forefront of English studies, the field has become further disseminated, and composition remains in the shadows.
I believe the purpose of teaching should be to inspire, challenge, and equip a younger, rising generation. The greatest accomplishment that I can have as a teacher is to help students grow as critical thinkers and life-long learner. Learning is not the consumption and regurgitation of facts. Learning is about self-awareness – knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses and improving one’s self. Successful learning is when a student grasps a new concept or tool that enables him to have a deeper understanding of the world around him. I believe in guiding students, creating a positive and safe environment conducive to learning, modeling important behaviors, and teaching them tools that they can use independently in order to achieve success. Assessing student understanding is difficult. I currently use the standard grading system, but have often pondered other theories like pass/fail or even allowing students to grade themselves. I don’t like relying on the gradebook as much as I do, but with so many students I feel it is impossible (and unfair) to do otherwise.
Besides the development of critical thinking skills and a passion for life-long learning, my goal for my students is to help them become effective communicators and appreciators of culture. In writing instruction I try to incorporate elements of all of Stewart’s approaches to writing instruction. I believe that expressivist writing is very important for personal reflection and growth, cultural studies is important to get students thinking outside the box and challenging the power structures that have controlled their generation and those before. Though I am not a huge supporter of the current-traditional rhetoric, I still believe some instruction in usage and structure is necessary. I try to incorporate a variety of activities in class that address all of my students learning styles. I believe in fostering creativity and self-expression, but I also believe in the importance of discipline and fortitude. I lecture occasionally, but more often I try to equip students with effective strategies in reading and writing, model positive behavior and effective techniques, and challenge students o think independently and critically. I have been using technology more in my lessons and am trying to give students more problem based activities in which they have freedom in the responses. Technology is crucial because it students use it daily on heir own and mastery of it is quickly becoming a prerequisite in many fields.
I believe that one on one and small group interactions with students is absolutely essential. I believe that it is important to develop a connection with students and to build trust. When one has less than an hour each day to spend with a group of roughly thirty students, building a rapport can be extremely difficult. My vision of the ideal educational setting is this: first, the school day should be divided into two segments instead of approximately seven periods. One session should focus on the humanities: art, music, literature, history, communication (including writing and speech), even religion and philosophy, the other session should focus on math and the sciences. Because many of the topics overlap, they should be taught together and student interest should typically guide much of the instruction. In addition, learning should take place in small groups so that the instructor can be directly involved with education of each student.
My students journal a great deal and I try to incorporate a variety of strategies to stimulate and motivate them. For instance, I frequently use music as a tool. Every Friday we set aside some time to listen to, analyze, write on and discuss a different song. We have listened to a wide variety of genres and students help pick the music. I also like to give students group work in which they are required to research, collaborate, and present their findings to the class in creative ways. For example, before reading The Canterbury Tales, student groups researched various aspects of medieval society, organized their info, and on presentation day we had great food, costumes, hilarious videos, games, and even dancing!
Composition instruction is currently the under-glorified workhorse of the English department.
Teachers receive little recognition next to their literature or theory based publishing counterparts. Different universities have different focuses when it comes to teaching writing, and Stewart identified three: Expressivism, Critical/Cultural Studies, and Procedural Rhetoric. The “current-traditional” rhetoric has come under fire by many, because of its focus on usage and formulaic structure. Fulkerson would agree with Stewart that “Composition has become much more complex” (679). The focus of English studies shifted in the 1990s according to Jeffrey Williams from criticism to theory. Now that theory has become the forefront of English studies, the field has become further disseminated, and composition remains in the shadows.
I believe the purpose of teaching should be to inspire, challenge, and equip a younger, rising generation. The greatest accomplishment that I can have as a teacher is to help students grow as critical thinkers and life-long learner. Learning is not the consumption and regurgitation of facts. Learning is about self-awareness – knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses and improving one’s self. Successful learning is when a student grasps a new concept or tool that enables him to have a deeper understanding of the world around him. I believe in guiding students, creating a positive and safe environment conducive to learning, modeling important behaviors, and teaching them tools that they can use independently in order to achieve success. Assessing student understanding is difficult. I currently use the standard grading system, but have often pondered other theories like pass/fail or even allowing students to grade themselves. I don’t like relying on the gradebook as much as I do, but with so many students I feel it is impossible (and unfair) to do otherwise.
Besides the development of critical thinking skills and a passion for life-long learning, my goal for my students is to help them become effective communicators and appreciators of culture. In writing instruction I try to incorporate elements of all of Stewart’s approaches to writing instruction. I believe that expressivist writing is very important for personal reflection and growth, cultural studies is important to get students thinking outside the box and challenging the power structures that have controlled their generation and those before. Though I am not a huge supporter of the current-traditional rhetoric, I still believe some instruction in usage and structure is necessary. I try to incorporate a variety of activities in class that address all of my students learning styles. I believe in fostering creativity and self-expression, but I also believe in the importance of discipline and fortitude. I lecture occasionally, but more often I try to equip students with effective strategies in reading and writing, model positive behavior and effective techniques, and challenge students o think independently and critically. I have been using technology more in my lessons and am trying to give students more problem based activities in which they have freedom in the responses. Technology is crucial because it students use it daily on heir own and mastery of it is quickly becoming a prerequisite in many fields.
I believe that one on one and small group interactions with students is absolutely essential. I believe that it is important to develop a connection with students and to build trust. When one has less than an hour each day to spend with a group of roughly thirty students, building a rapport can be extremely difficult. My vision of the ideal educational setting is this: first, the school day should be divided into two segments instead of approximately seven periods. One session should focus on the humanities: art, music, literature, history, communication (including writing and speech), even religion and philosophy, the other session should focus on math and the sciences. Because many of the topics overlap, they should be taught together and student interest should typically guide much of the instruction. In addition, learning should take place in small groups so that the instructor can be directly involved with education of each student.
My students journal a great deal and I try to incorporate a variety of strategies to stimulate and motivate them. For instance, I frequently use music as a tool. Every Friday we set aside some time to listen to, analyze, write on and discuss a different song. We have listened to a wide variety of genres and students help pick the music. I also like to give students group work in which they are required to research, collaborate, and present their findings to the class in creative ways. For example, before reading The Canterbury Tales, student groups researched various aspects of medieval society, organized their info, and on presentation day we had great food, costumes, hilarious videos, games, and even dancing!
26.1.09
Williams Article
“Packaging Theory” by Jeffrey Williams discusses the “flood of anthologies regarding literary theory in the 1990s. He claims that theory became the primary function at this time, replacing criticism as the primary focus of English studies. By publishing these anthologies the field is validating the once widely debated importance of theory and creating a new realm for study which secures the necessity of this department. In addition, marketing theory like this is a big time money-maker.
Williams takes issue with the two main ways in which these anthologies are composed: the hall-of-fame model and the movement model. The former organizes the anthology with lists of the all-stars of theory in the table of content, yet it fails to capture the real depth, growth, and development of theory over the years. The movement theory organizes the various subtopics within theory, but still fails to capture the interaction between subcategories and also neglects to acknowledge the minor contributing voices in the theoretical discourse.
Who’s to say who should be anthologized? Is it whoever gets published or cited the most? Everyone in academics is aligning themselves to prosper; they all attempt to validate and valorize themselves. Just like with literature, who has the privilege of composing the canon of theory? The flaw with having theory at the center of the field is that it is all based on speculation. What should be the focus of “English”?
It’s interesting that Williams claims to have “some ambivalence in the entrenchment of theory” because he has no problem throwing together an anthology of his own.
Williams takes issue with the two main ways in which these anthologies are composed: the hall-of-fame model and the movement model. The former organizes the anthology with lists of the all-stars of theory in the table of content, yet it fails to capture the real depth, growth, and development of theory over the years. The movement theory organizes the various subtopics within theory, but still fails to capture the interaction between subcategories and also neglects to acknowledge the minor contributing voices in the theoretical discourse.
Who’s to say who should be anthologized? Is it whoever gets published or cited the most? Everyone in academics is aligning themselves to prosper; they all attempt to validate and valorize themselves. Just like with literature, who has the privilege of composing the canon of theory? The flaw with having theory at the center of the field is that it is all based on speculation. What should be the focus of “English”?
It’s interesting that Williams claims to have “some ambivalence in the entrenchment of theory” because he has no problem throwing together an anthology of his own.
25.1.09
Sleeping through Schultz
Schultz article “Elaborating Our History: A Look at Mid-19th Century First Books of Composition” is painfully dull. In the article, she successfully demonstrated her knowledge of mid 1800s composition books, but left me wondering what her point was. She did a bunch of research and found some old and really obscure books on teaching writing. She then contrasts these texts to the more common composition books at the time. The difference between these two types of books is clear the entire time: the popular books, like John Walker’s The Teacher’s Assistant, were more rule-centered and asked students to memorize more than write while the more obscure books that Schultz looks at gave the students more opportunities for creativity and potentially even some preliminary critical thinking.
Schultz shows that Walker underestimated his students, and his three pedagogical tenets make this abundantly clear. He required students to follow strict rules and do an extensive amount of memorizing before they could even tough pen to paper. Morely and Frost, Schultz’s prized writers, prompt their students to just start writing basically and even challenge them to conduct research and observations on topics of interest to them.
An example of the “unconventional” practices of the texts explored by Schultz is the use of illustrations as writing prompts. This is actually mildly interesting. The most important difference though is that these latter authors encourage students to explore their on personal experiences, whereas Walker would never consider such a thing. It is also interesting to see that “Frost invites his students to reflect on their experience as a writer” (22). Practicing metacognition at this time had to be pretty rare it seems, so I give Frost credit.
I just feel that Schultz never made a strong or meaningful argument and that most of the article was extremely tedious and superfluous. She does have three conclusive points she argues at the end; however, these are completely uninteresting. I was just left wondering what the point of this was. How does this apply to modern pedagogical composition approaches? Is it just gaining a further historical perspective as Stewart argues? This is the one article that we read for this week that I feel I took nothing away from.
Schultz shows that Walker underestimated his students, and his three pedagogical tenets make this abundantly clear. He required students to follow strict rules and do an extensive amount of memorizing before they could even tough pen to paper. Morely and Frost, Schultz’s prized writers, prompt their students to just start writing basically and even challenge them to conduct research and observations on topics of interest to them.
An example of the “unconventional” practices of the texts explored by Schultz is the use of illustrations as writing prompts. This is actually mildly interesting. The most important difference though is that these latter authors encourage students to explore their on personal experiences, whereas Walker would never consider such a thing. It is also interesting to see that “Frost invites his students to reflect on their experience as a writer” (22). Practicing metacognition at this time had to be pretty rare it seems, so I give Frost credit.
I just feel that Schultz never made a strong or meaningful argument and that most of the article was extremely tedious and superfluous. She does have three conclusive points she argues at the end; however, these are completely uninteresting. I was just left wondering what the point of this was. How does this apply to modern pedagogical composition approaches? Is it just gaining a further historical perspective as Stewart argues? This is the one article that we read for this week that I feel I took nothing away from.
Fulkerson Article
Fulkerson argues in “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” that the approaches to composition theory are fractured and are continually becoming more frayed. In the article, he outlines three current theories: critical/cultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric (655), and in doing so, Fulkerson analyzes the evaluation, view of process, pedagogical ideology, and epistemology of each.
The focus of cultural studies is on the unbalanced and unjust power relationships between forces of domination and those of subjugation. The purpose is not only to represent the subaltern, but also for the writer to liberate himself from the dominant societal mindset. What I love about this approach is that instructors encourage students to challenge authority, to reflect on cultural differences, and to think critically. The criticism of this approach is that it doesn’t teach writing. But if this approach really can make strides in achieving a more socially just and harmonious country or even world, can one argue that “good” writing is more important? Another fear that arises with the CCS approach is one of indoctrination – will professors merely engrain in their students their own specific ideologies? I don’t think it has to be this way personally. Can’t one teach from a CCS approach and genuinely teach critical thinking at the same time ?
Expressivism, which apparently has been growing under the radar, is more focused on the “personal development” of the writer (667). Again, the focus is not on the writing process, but neither is it on critical thinking here: expressivism is about exploring one’s own thoughts and leaning about oneself. Personally, I think that there is definitely a place for this approach in education, yet I don not feel this should be the main strategy in teaching composition. This type of writing might inspire creativity, and it might be therapeutic, but I don’t think that this is the approach that serious academic scholarship needs. Fulkerson then brings up the debate about “process” writing versus “post-process” writing.
Finally, Fulkerson brings up the rhetorical approach to composition, yet he has divided this category into three distinct philosophies: “composition as argumentation, genre-based composition, and composition as introduction to an academic discourse community” (671). The argumentation approach is the idea that the purpose of a composition is to present and support an argument, the genre approach focuses on the “modes of discourse,” and the third approach, centering on discourse communities, focuses on training students to become a part of the academic community through instruction in language, composition, and research.
Fulkerson’s final conclusion, that “limiting students to understanding one dominant perspective disadvantages them. Programs will have to make serious choices and perhaps prepare students as utility players able to fit several positions,” is probably his most accurate statement of all (680).
The focus of cultural studies is on the unbalanced and unjust power relationships between forces of domination and those of subjugation. The purpose is not only to represent the subaltern, but also for the writer to liberate himself from the dominant societal mindset. What I love about this approach is that instructors encourage students to challenge authority, to reflect on cultural differences, and to think critically. The criticism of this approach is that it doesn’t teach writing. But if this approach really can make strides in achieving a more socially just and harmonious country or even world, can one argue that “good” writing is more important? Another fear that arises with the CCS approach is one of indoctrination – will professors merely engrain in their students their own specific ideologies? I don’t think it has to be this way personally. Can’t one teach from a CCS approach and genuinely teach critical thinking at the same time ?
Expressivism, which apparently has been growing under the radar, is more focused on the “personal development” of the writer (667). Again, the focus is not on the writing process, but neither is it on critical thinking here: expressivism is about exploring one’s own thoughts and leaning about oneself. Personally, I think that there is definitely a place for this approach in education, yet I don not feel this should be the main strategy in teaching composition. This type of writing might inspire creativity, and it might be therapeutic, but I don’t think that this is the approach that serious academic scholarship needs. Fulkerson then brings up the debate about “process” writing versus “post-process” writing.
Finally, Fulkerson brings up the rhetorical approach to composition, yet he has divided this category into three distinct philosophies: “composition as argumentation, genre-based composition, and composition as introduction to an academic discourse community” (671). The argumentation approach is the idea that the purpose of a composition is to present and support an argument, the genre approach focuses on the “modes of discourse,” and the third approach, centering on discourse communities, focuses on training students to become a part of the academic community through instruction in language, composition, and research.
Fulkerson’s final conclusion, that “limiting students to understanding one dominant perspective disadvantages them. Programs will have to make serious choices and perhaps prepare students as utility players able to fit several positions,” is probably his most accurate statement of all (680).
Stewart Article
Donald Stewart makes two things clear right away: he believes in the “importance of historical knowledge for modern composition teachers” and that he abhors the use of a formulaic or “current-traditional rhetoric” approach to composition instruction.
So, “what is important in writing?” Stewart asks. Clearly, he does not believe that usage or the formulaic process are important. This approach is criticized for the fear that students and teachers who follow this approach will become drones, unable to construct independent and critical thoughts. He uses some powerful diction, calling the five-paragraph essay a “verbal straightjacket” (137). And the quotation from John Genung’s 1886 book is quite compelling: “This is evidently an unconscious surrender to the tyranny of a mental habit” (137). What I’m taking away from this section is that our academic institutions somehow got locked into this restrictive way of thinking about composition a long time ago and we haven’t been able to emancipate ourselves from it. Who decided what academic writing should look like? Why wasn’t the decision made a long time ago that creativity and expression were the most important aspects of writing? Maybe if this were the case we would have more poets writing beautiful lyrics than cynics penning tedious criticisms.
The Platonic idea that discourse should be a “living creature” suggests that composition is inflexible, and therefore, not as effective as speech/rhetoric. The implication here is that students need to learn how to formulate an argument and then be able to not only defend it, but also to subtly modify the arguments for various audiences.
George Hempel’s three points on the misconceptions of the English language were insightful to me. Why does the written word have more currency in our society than the spoken word? Who has the authority to determine the “rules” of our language and to say what “good” English is versus “bad” English? Language is an organic creature continuously morphing meanings, directions, purposes. Language should not be locked in a box. The descriptive approach to language here, one of non-judgmental empiricism seems like a much more pacifying approach, though what do you do with the findings? Should the development of language be observed just for observations sake, or can this be applied to writing in order to improve style or some other area?
One of the most intriguing ideas presented in the article was on the last page when Stewart brings up technology. It is interesting to think that this speech was originally composed over 25 years ago. This debate has definitely continued and he was right in that technology now plays a major factor in how we think about writing. With the recent technological gains, pretty much anyone in the world can display their thoughts to a wide, diverse, and global audience. These people do not need to be published anymore, they just need internet access. And though blogging and other new communicative alternatives may not be academic scholarship, these new approaches to composition and rhetoric need to be studied very closely because these genres are beginning to have more currency and a larger audience in our society than much current scholarship.
So, “what is important in writing?” Stewart asks. Clearly, he does not believe that usage or the formulaic process are important. This approach is criticized for the fear that students and teachers who follow this approach will become drones, unable to construct independent and critical thoughts. He uses some powerful diction, calling the five-paragraph essay a “verbal straightjacket” (137). And the quotation from John Genung’s 1886 book is quite compelling: “This is evidently an unconscious surrender to the tyranny of a mental habit” (137). What I’m taking away from this section is that our academic institutions somehow got locked into this restrictive way of thinking about composition a long time ago and we haven’t been able to emancipate ourselves from it. Who decided what academic writing should look like? Why wasn’t the decision made a long time ago that creativity and expression were the most important aspects of writing? Maybe if this were the case we would have more poets writing beautiful lyrics than cynics penning tedious criticisms.
The Platonic idea that discourse should be a “living creature” suggests that composition is inflexible, and therefore, not as effective as speech/rhetoric. The implication here is that students need to learn how to formulate an argument and then be able to not only defend it, but also to subtly modify the arguments for various audiences.
George Hempel’s three points on the misconceptions of the English language were insightful to me. Why does the written word have more currency in our society than the spoken word? Who has the authority to determine the “rules” of our language and to say what “good” English is versus “bad” English? Language is an organic creature continuously morphing meanings, directions, purposes. Language should not be locked in a box. The descriptive approach to language here, one of non-judgmental empiricism seems like a much more pacifying approach, though what do you do with the findings? Should the development of language be observed just for observations sake, or can this be applied to writing in order to improve style or some other area?
One of the most intriguing ideas presented in the article was on the last page when Stewart brings up technology. It is interesting to think that this speech was originally composed over 25 years ago. This debate has definitely continued and he was right in that technology now plays a major factor in how we think about writing. With the recent technological gains, pretty much anyone in the world can display their thoughts to a wide, diverse, and global audience. These people do not need to be published anymore, they just need internet access. And though blogging and other new communicative alternatives may not be academic scholarship, these new approaches to composition and rhetoric need to be studied very closely because these genres are beginning to have more currency and a larger audience in our society than much current scholarship.
24.1.09
Popken Article
Popken set the tone for this article right from the start: “professionalism in composition valorizes scholarship and demeans teaching” (618). It is unfortunate, but that seems to be the bottom line of professional higher education; the old motto of “publish or perish” seems truer now than ever. This is a shame because there has been a shift in focus. Where the focus of education used to be student-centered, it is now self-centered. Many academic professors are only concerned with climbing the ladder and bringing more accolades upon themselves. I understand that research, publishing, and contributing to the academic discourses going on is essential, but is there any way to change this unbalanced problem that Popken brings up? With the massive amount of academic journals and essays and books being published, what’s the point? Only a handful of people ever read the majority of this stuff anyway. The quantity of publishing has increased drastically, and I feel the quality has had to decrease along with it. Most importantly is Horner’s idea of the “material social conditions” in academe. Shouldn’t the purpose of an academic institution be to educate students? I know that sounds obvious, but clearly something’s not right.
Edwin Hopkins left me bewildered. On the one hand, you have to admire his dedication to his profession. This guy was completely sold out to teaching and helping improve his students’ writing, which is great. But on the other hand, I feel he needed to get a life. Popken says, “his devotion to duty is so great in fact that he tells Strong he is willing to risk his health—and even his life—for it” (622). I mean come on. Who in their right mind would risk their life to grade a few extra freshman compositions? I love teaching, and I can’t think of another profession I would enjoy more, but there are still a few things in my life that absolutely take priority over grading papers. I’m glad that he initiated a change at Kansas, but it’s disappointing that we haven’t taken away more from this man.
I also agree with the assertion that the heavy work load imposed upon teachers of composition deteriorates the quality of their teaching. You can only expect so much from these individuals, and to put the onus of critiquing papers and helping students improve their writing on top of teaching, lecturing, and preparing for classes is unreasonable. It is sad that those who work the hardest often receive the least recognition for their efforts. The quality of education should be the top priority of our academic institutions, but unfortunately we live in a society were wealth and status often take precedent over all else.
Edwin Hopkins left me bewildered. On the one hand, you have to admire his dedication to his profession. This guy was completely sold out to teaching and helping improve his students’ writing, which is great. But on the other hand, I feel he needed to get a life. Popken says, “his devotion to duty is so great in fact that he tells Strong he is willing to risk his health—and even his life—for it” (622). I mean come on. Who in their right mind would risk their life to grade a few extra freshman compositions? I love teaching, and I can’t think of another profession I would enjoy more, but there are still a few things in my life that absolutely take priority over grading papers. I’m glad that he initiated a change at Kansas, but it’s disappointing that we haven’t taken away more from this man.
I also agree with the assertion that the heavy work load imposed upon teachers of composition deteriorates the quality of their teaching. You can only expect so much from these individuals, and to put the onus of critiquing papers and helping students improve their writing on top of teaching, lecturing, and preparing for classes is unreasonable. It is sad that those who work the hardest often receive the least recognition for their efforts. The quality of education should be the top priority of our academic institutions, but unfortunately we live in a society were wealth and status often take precedent over all else.
Bishop Article
Bishop discusses the problem of fatigue and burnout among instructors of rhetoric and composition while juxtaposing this issue with the passion and enjoyment felt in early exploration of the field.
I feel that I can definitely relate to Bishop’s ideas here. I mean, when I first started out as an undergrad, I had no idea what field or profession I wanted to pursue. I had a few interests, but no direction. I started of as a communications major, but that didn’t last long. After taking two gen ed level literature courses with two young energetic male professors (something which I hadn’t had in my secondary education) I found I was being stimulated by literature, something that hadn’t taken place in my life for a long time. I switched my major then to English Education with the intent of inspiring other young people to develop a passion for literature and language. Further positive experiences in literature, linguistics, and pedagogical courses solidified my love for the broadly defined field of “English.”
I loved the insert by Burke about joining the theory debate far too late, contributing a little, and then realizing that the discussion will continue on for a long time without you. I wasn’t exposed to a great deal of theory in my undergrad courses so when I started this program two years ago and this new language was being thrown around everywhere, I felt completely lost. I kept thinking, “What did I miss and how do I catch up?” One of the ideas that Bishop brings up is that today it is basically impossible to always stay completely current in the field. Though frustrating, it is also kind of a relief: knowing that you can only do so much. I have struggled with attempting to balance my personal interests and passion in the field with studying what I feel a have to learn in order to be more able to contribute to the discourse.
Bishop’s points on burnout were interesting for me too. I am early on in my professional career, this being just my third year teaching, so I haven’t felt the boredom from years of research, instruction, and grading that she speaks of, but I have definitely felt the exhaustion that comes with combining the frustrations and workload of your early teaching years and the intensity of graduate level work.
I continue to consider the possibility of pursuing a doctorate at some point and working in the higher academic field, but for now, I just want to finish up this MA program and enjoy some time improving myself professionally and privately independently. The big dilemma for me is that I will be a father soon, and the thought of being the dad at the soccer game grading papers horrifies me.
The fact that this composition was intended for the audience of the CCCC makes the ending of the piece more understandable; however, the feeling that her main intention was to improve the numbers for CCCC membership was a little disappointing and slightly sullied some of her earlier ideas.
I feel that I can definitely relate to Bishop’s ideas here. I mean, when I first started out as an undergrad, I had no idea what field or profession I wanted to pursue. I had a few interests, but no direction. I started of as a communications major, but that didn’t last long. After taking two gen ed level literature courses with two young energetic male professors (something which I hadn’t had in my secondary education) I found I was being stimulated by literature, something that hadn’t taken place in my life for a long time. I switched my major then to English Education with the intent of inspiring other young people to develop a passion for literature and language. Further positive experiences in literature, linguistics, and pedagogical courses solidified my love for the broadly defined field of “English.”
I loved the insert by Burke about joining the theory debate far too late, contributing a little, and then realizing that the discussion will continue on for a long time without you. I wasn’t exposed to a great deal of theory in my undergrad courses so when I started this program two years ago and this new language was being thrown around everywhere, I felt completely lost. I kept thinking, “What did I miss and how do I catch up?” One of the ideas that Bishop brings up is that today it is basically impossible to always stay completely current in the field. Though frustrating, it is also kind of a relief: knowing that you can only do so much. I have struggled with attempting to balance my personal interests and passion in the field with studying what I feel a have to learn in order to be more able to contribute to the discourse.
Bishop’s points on burnout were interesting for me too. I am early on in my professional career, this being just my third year teaching, so I haven’t felt the boredom from years of research, instruction, and grading that she speaks of, but I have definitely felt the exhaustion that comes with combining the frustrations and workload of your early teaching years and the intensity of graduate level work.
I continue to consider the possibility of pursuing a doctorate at some point and working in the higher academic field, but for now, I just want to finish up this MA program and enjoy some time improving myself professionally and privately independently. The big dilemma for me is that I will be a father soon, and the thought of being the dad at the soccer game grading papers horrifies me.
The fact that this composition was intended for the audience of the CCCC makes the ending of the piece more understandable; however, the feeling that her main intention was to improve the numbers for CCCC membership was a little disappointing and slightly sullied some of her earlier ideas.
20.1.09
Why Comp Theory?
Why am I here?
I believe this course will provide valuable insight into modern academic scholarship in composition and rhetorical theory. Like most aspects of our rapidly changing world, academe has embraced technology and is moving faster than ever. Research is being completed by a growing number of scholars at an increasingly rapid pace, and the work is all being done online now. I look forward to using more technology this semester and blogging for the first time.
Rhetoric is the employment of specifically chosen symbols with the purpose of achieving a certain aim within a power relationship. Composition is the physical construction of words and thoughts in order to communicate ideas with others. The number of genres which now carry the moniker "composition" continues to multiply. Each genre lends itself to a different function though: some are academic, while others are purely social, some are formal, others informal, etc. Regardless of the specific function, the purpose of all composition is to communicate ideas. One expectation of mine is that we will study some of the various approaches to writing instruction in addition to effective strategies in communication and persuasion through writing.
Though this course is required, I feel it is critical for graduate (and undergraduate) students to be cognizent of the theories and ideas that shape the academic world, and therefore, their own educational experiences. As graduate students we are near the source of this fast paced world of scholarship, and it is necessary that we both study and participate in the discourse taking place.
I believe this course will provide valuable insight into modern academic scholarship in composition and rhetorical theory. Like most aspects of our rapidly changing world, academe has embraced technology and is moving faster than ever. Research is being completed by a growing number of scholars at an increasingly rapid pace, and the work is all being done online now. I look forward to using more technology this semester and blogging for the first time.
Rhetoric is the employment of specifically chosen symbols with the purpose of achieving a certain aim within a power relationship. Composition is the physical construction of words and thoughts in order to communicate ideas with others. The number of genres which now carry the moniker "composition" continues to multiply. Each genre lends itself to a different function though: some are academic, while others are purely social, some are formal, others informal, etc. Regardless of the specific function, the purpose of all composition is to communicate ideas. One expectation of mine is that we will study some of the various approaches to writing instruction in addition to effective strategies in communication and persuasion through writing.
Though this course is required, I feel it is critical for graduate (and undergraduate) students to be cognizent of the theories and ideas that shape the academic world, and therefore, their own educational experiences. As graduate students we are near the source of this fast paced world of scholarship, and it is necessary that we both study and participate in the discourse taking place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)