The main argument of the article by Brammer and Brees is that peer review is a valuable part of the writing process if done in the right way. It seems that many composition instructors have accepted that peer review should be a part of the writing process, yet they fail to thoroughly instruct students in how to successfully participate in it. Teachers must increase time preparing students, use multiple ways of presenting the strategies of the process (lecturing, handouts, and modeling), and demonstrate to students that they themselves believe in the value of peer review (81). This helps students to go deeper than simply making proofreading corrections.
The basis for this article was a survey conducted at a predominantly “white, middle-class, suburban” university in which the researchers questioned both faculty and students on their experiences with and attitudes toward peer review. The results were not terribly surprising: most students and faculty believe that there is some value in the process. It is more interesting to look at these statistics next to the results from the L2 survey. Most L2 students also believe in the importance of peer review; however, they experience more anxiety and reluctance to participate because of the inherent power relationships involved in the process. Though students who are still struggling to master the English language may have very valid, even profound, thoughts, they have far less confidence in expressing them because of the communication barrier.
One of the ideas suggested by Brammer and Rees is that in order to have an effective collaborative peer review experience, a rapport must be developed among group members. “Students need to create a sense of shared community in order to develop dialogues of trust and to build confidence in their classroom peers” (81). Because writing is a very personal process and sharing one’s writing means making one’s self vulnerable, creating a positive, nonjudgmental environment is extremely important in ensuring that students can be confident about their writing as well as the peer review process.
23.2.09
Kratzke
Kratzke frames his article around the concept of “recopying to revise;” however, his main argument is that teachers must train students to remain (or become) independent of computers. Instructors cannot be Luddites; technology should be used as a tool provided that it assists and does not interfere with students’ cognitive and composition processes. The notion of drafting was interesting for me because I’m young enough that I always remember being able to save documents, whether on a thumb drive or floppy disk. I’ve never had to rewrite multiple drafts, but imagining this leads me to the conjecture that, although painstaking and time-consuming, drafting in the old sense must have done much more to improve student writing than the current revision process. As Kratzke claims “much student writing lacks a certain human quality” (authors emphasis) (15). The major issue is that students are skipping the entire cognitive process: spell check and grammar check make most of the corrections for students, and the corrections the students do make on their own are superficial. If real, in-depth revisioning is not completed, then students are unwittingly tweaking the same first draft over and over.
One issue brought up by Kratzke is the notion that student achievement in composition is not increasing. For scores of years instructors have lamented over their students’ declining writing skills. If these instructors are never satisfied can it possibly mean that good writing is simply not easy to do? I personally believe that great writing takes incredible amounts of time, effort, and practice (and possibly a little natural talent). All other writers, whether poor, mediocre, or good, can always improve, but I’m not sure that it is possible to have a massive quantity of great writers.
Kratzke quotes Jane Healy pondering the Ongian possibility that “the act of reading itself may be on the way to obsolescence” (13). NPR had a report this morning of a university in Mississippi that has made the transition to all computer-based textbooks. The benefits and disadvantages will continue to be argued, but the fact remains that physical texts are losing ground in many ways. I agree with Kratzke that the “transactional” nature seems to be missing when you read a text on the computer; however, I’m sure that new modes of cognition will develop with technology. The important thing is that this metacognitive process does not become obsolete.
One issue brought up by Kratzke is the notion that student achievement in composition is not increasing. For scores of years instructors have lamented over their students’ declining writing skills. If these instructors are never satisfied can it possibly mean that good writing is simply not easy to do? I personally believe that great writing takes incredible amounts of time, effort, and practice (and possibly a little natural talent). All other writers, whether poor, mediocre, or good, can always improve, but I’m not sure that it is possible to have a massive quantity of great writers.
Kratzke quotes Jane Healy pondering the Ongian possibility that “the act of reading itself may be on the way to obsolescence” (13). NPR had a report this morning of a university in Mississippi that has made the transition to all computer-based textbooks. The benefits and disadvantages will continue to be argued, but the fact remains that physical texts are losing ground in many ways. I agree with Kratzke that the “transactional” nature seems to be missing when you read a text on the computer; however, I’m sure that new modes of cognition will develop with technology. The important thing is that this metacognitive process does not become obsolete.
Tasker and Holt-Underwood
This article summarized the major arguments that have been developing over the last forty years in feminist literary criticism and theory. The article really doesn’t posit any ground-breaking new ideas; instead, it reminds the reader of the long and difficult struggle that women have faced in achieving an equal voice in society. Feminist historiography in composition and rhetoric reveals the silencing of female voices throughout the literary tradition. Criticism of the early aspects of this approach is that “feminist methods are highly interpretive, difficult to identify, and often only implied” (57). Over the last couple of decades, approaches to and opinions of feminism in the literary field have grown tremendously and have become much more diversified.
One assertion that I found particularly interesting was brought up by Patricia A. Sullivan. Tasker and Holt-Underwood explain that “Sullivan argues that women’s cognitive functions are different than men’s” (58). I would be interested to hear an explanation of exactly what these differences are. The debate between Biesecker and Campbell was also particularly interesting. The two argue about historical methodology and both claim the other is further silencing women’s voices. I agree with Campbell that not all women (or individuals) have “equal rhetorical ability;” there are innumerable factors that determine one’s abilities, and no two individuals are exactly alike. One of the things that is made the clearest in this article is the notion of pluralism in feminist methodology. Every individual has her own experiences, methods, and agendas creating endlessly diverse perspectives. That “pluralism thrives” (67), is a notion that is central not only to feminist research methodologies, but to all of theory and criticism in general.
One assertion that I found particularly interesting was brought up by Patricia A. Sullivan. Tasker and Holt-Underwood explain that “Sullivan argues that women’s cognitive functions are different than men’s” (58). I would be interested to hear an explanation of exactly what these differences are. The debate between Biesecker and Campbell was also particularly interesting. The two argue about historical methodology and both claim the other is further silencing women’s voices. I agree with Campbell that not all women (or individuals) have “equal rhetorical ability;” there are innumerable factors that determine one’s abilities, and no two individuals are exactly alike. One of the things that is made the clearest in this article is the notion of pluralism in feminist methodology. Every individual has her own experiences, methods, and agendas creating endlessly diverse perspectives. That “pluralism thrives” (67), is a notion that is central not only to feminist research methodologies, but to all of theory and criticism in general.
Bartholomae Presentation
Like Bizzell, Bartholomae emphasizes the importance of preparing students for academic discourse. Students must find their place within culture and must be self-aware. Bartholomae seems to keep it pretty simple: students must learn their place within cultural contexts, the analysis of academic texts must be at the center of the thought process, and engaging in academic discourse is the ultimate goal for these students.
The debate between Elbow and Bartholomae makes public a discourse on the appropriate approaches to composition and language. Comparing ideas of social versus individual contexts of writing, and trust versus skepticism of language are interesting disputes. I agree with Bartholomae that language should be distrusted because it is constantly being manipulated in order to exert power, sell products, and persuade audiences. However, what may be more interesting are the similarities between Elbow and Bartholomae. Both see the importance of approaching writing as a process and carrying out a great deal of writing. Students also need to develop self-confidence in their critical thinking and writing processes; this empowers students to further develop their voice.
Hearing how Bartholomae’s ideas worked in relation to Elbow’s was important and very beneficial. Emily’s presentation helped to clarify the argument between these two scholars and to see how this debate has contributed to larger ideas of composition in the academic setting.
The debate between Elbow and Bartholomae makes public a discourse on the appropriate approaches to composition and language. Comparing ideas of social versus individual contexts of writing, and trust versus skepticism of language are interesting disputes. I agree with Bartholomae that language should be distrusted because it is constantly being manipulated in order to exert power, sell products, and persuade audiences. However, what may be more interesting are the similarities between Elbow and Bartholomae. Both see the importance of approaching writing as a process and carrying out a great deal of writing. Students also need to develop self-confidence in their critical thinking and writing processes; this empowers students to further develop their voice.
Hearing how Bartholomae’s ideas worked in relation to Elbow’s was important and very beneficial. Emily’s presentation helped to clarify the argument between these two scholars and to see how this debate has contributed to larger ideas of composition in the academic setting.
Bizzell Presentation
I definitely dig Patricia Bizzell. Culture is our key to connecting with students and getting them to think critically. It seems like there may be a connection to Graff here in the way Bizzell encourages the politicizing of texts. Again, it is the nature of conflict and differences of meaning and interpretation that enable dialogue and critical thinking. By bringing in the political aspect, the relationships of power can be explored, and students are challenged by opposing ideas. It is crucial for students to learn to take a position early on. When students learn to take a position, even with their own deep-seeded cultural beliefs, they are developing the “self-awareness” that Bizzell promotes.
Bizzell also suggests that students do not merely have a writing problem, they also have a thinking problem. The task of the instructor is to use the students’ culture as a tool to help engage students in critical thinking. When students begin to see the how they operate within their own culture and how this culture determines their thought process they can also begin to think critically about relationships to other, more diverse ideas and can begin to engage in dialogue within various academic discourse communities.
Bizzell also suggests that students do not merely have a writing problem, they also have a thinking problem. The task of the instructor is to use the students’ culture as a tool to help engage students in critical thinking. When students begin to see the how they operate within their own culture and how this culture determines their thought process they can also begin to think critically about relationships to other, more diverse ideas and can begin to engage in dialogue within various academic discourse communities.
Graff Presentation
Conflict. If there is one word to sum up Gerald Graff and his ideas on composition, pedagogy, and thought, it has to be conflict. Graff employs words like “against,” “wars,” and “argumentation” to illustrate his assertion that differences of opinion are the starting point of academic discourse. Even Graff’s dissertation on poetry and objective reality centers on argumentation: he asserts that poetry is more similar to prose than most assume and that poetry makes claims and assumptions that hold objective truth and can be argued just like prose. Graff abandoned a strictly theoretical approach to focus more on pedagogical ideas, though he maintains his focus on conflict.
Graff’s promotes the idea that teachers must prepare students to enter the world of academic discourse. I like his ideas about “teaching the conflicts;” this is the way that scholars and audiences make meaning of texts. Nuanced interpretations of texts create subtle differences of meaning. Students need to first understand the scholarly vernacular being used, and if instructors need to “translate” it for them, then so be it. The essential thing is that students become familiar with the academic climate of debate and that they learn to develop their own voices within this culture.
Scott’s handouts were very helpful in understanding Graff’s arguments and how he relates to our other major theorists.
Graff’s promotes the idea that teachers must prepare students to enter the world of academic discourse. I like his ideas about “teaching the conflicts;” this is the way that scholars and audiences make meaning of texts. Nuanced interpretations of texts create subtle differences of meaning. Students need to first understand the scholarly vernacular being used, and if instructors need to “translate” it for them, then so be it. The essential thing is that students become familiar with the academic climate of debate and that they learn to develop their own voices within this culture.
Scott’s handouts were very helpful in understanding Graff’s arguments and how he relates to our other major theorists.
13.2.09
Murray Presentation
The notion that Murray focused mainly on influencing the curriculum and pedagogy of secondary education, must have been a result of the troubling experiences he, himself, had in high school. This is great because I know I see dozens of students on a daily basis whose needs aren’t met in secondary public schools.
Murray believed composition instruction should be both “product driven and process-oriented,” combining the ideas of Kinneavy(?) and Elbow. He further developed hese ideas in his pre-vision, vision, and revision strategies. I believe the most important thing a teacher can do for a student is to help him discover a vision. Teaching information or even skills is one thing, but if you can inspire and motivate a student by assisting them in realizing their vision, you have empowered them to continue learning and growing on their own.
The pre-vision signals were very interesting to me, and I’d like to learn more about some of them (news, line ?). Following surprise is also an interesting idea... I loved Tony’s approach to the presentation. He brought a lot of good energy and showed us this theorist’s ideas instead of just telling us.
Murray believed composition instruction should be both “product driven and process-oriented,” combining the ideas of Kinneavy(?) and Elbow. He further developed hese ideas in his pre-vision, vision, and revision strategies. I believe the most important thing a teacher can do for a student is to help him discover a vision. Teaching information or even skills is one thing, but if you can inspire and motivate a student by assisting them in realizing their vision, you have empowered them to continue learning and growing on their own.
The pre-vision signals were very interesting to me, and I’d like to learn more about some of them (news, line ?). Following surprise is also an interesting idea... I loved Tony’s approach to the presentation. He brought a lot of good energy and showed us this theorist’s ideas instead of just telling us.
Lunsford Presentation
It was refreshing to hear of another theorist (Elbow and Murray being others) who struggled to achieve her place in the field. Lunsford’s humility in addressing the challenges of “making it” in the world of academe is encouraging, because the pompousness of some of these other guys can be nauseating at times. Her ideas regarding collaboration are noteworthy. Her relationship with Lisa Ede and others shows that the result of consistently exposing yourself to differing view points (and even just different personalities) can be the impetus that inspires great work.
One of the interesting ideas associated with Lunsford is her focus on the absence of attention to memoria in rhetoric study since the introduction of print. I think Ong would be particularly interested in this too, seeing how this was the most essential aspect of the word in purely oral cultures. So, how does Memory factor into rhetoric when language is based mainly on the printed/electronic word? The only “memory” I can think of is on a USB drive, which simply gives the electronic word more agility and longevity.
One of the interesting ideas associated with Lunsford is her focus on the absence of attention to memoria in rhetoric study since the introduction of print. I think Ong would be particularly interested in this too, seeing how this was the most essential aspect of the word in purely oral cultures. So, how does Memory factor into rhetoric when language is based mainly on the printed/electronic word? The only “memory” I can think of is on a USB drive, which simply gives the electronic word more agility and longevity.
Ong - Exploring Secondary Orality
The most interesting aspect of the Interface of the Word metaphor is the question mark at the end of the illustration. What is the future of the word? By labeling the advent of the “electronic word” secondary orality, Ong suggests that the visual will be dethroned by the oral. When we look at technology today the future is not completely clear; however, one thing is for certain: the word is expanding in new ways. Technology is transforming not only composition and education, but in a broader sense, it is changing the way society thinks.
Both visual and oral components are flourishing in the fields of composition, pedagogy, and communication. For example, the dominance of the visual word is still obvious in the record number of books that are published each year. Emails, blogging, text messaging, and web 2.0 have become dominant forms of communication. In addition, scholarly research may be done primarily through the computer today, but it still relies on text based information. The immense popularity of iTunes, the emergence of audiobooks, and the availability of lectures, speeches, and podcasts online has re-established the oral word as a major mode of cognition. While both oral and visual make strong independent claims for authority in language, the hybridization of the two may be the most interesting aspect yet. The use of webcams and video sharing (YouTube) cannot be overlooked. Combined oral and visual modes of communication are becoming some of the most commonly used forms of communication and are becoming much more important in tertiary education. (However, few secondary or primary schools actually fully utilize this technology.)
Regardless, Ong is right: this transformation of the word is changing the way that we think. Further evidence of the move from print to electronic culture can be seen in the radically changing newspaper industry. The demand for print editions of newspapers is quickly diminishing, so companies are turning to the web to deliver their information and opinions. We are now a society of excessive multitasking and rampant attention deficit disorder. We imbibe information in short bursts: we read a few lines here, watch a 50 second video clip there, and we’re set. I’m not criticizing this revolution in society, nor was Ong. It’s just fascinating to take a step back sometimes and look at how much the word (and world) is changing.
Ong on YouTube link
Both visual and oral components are flourishing in the fields of composition, pedagogy, and communication. For example, the dominance of the visual word is still obvious in the record number of books that are published each year. Emails, blogging, text messaging, and web 2.0 have become dominant forms of communication. In addition, scholarly research may be done primarily through the computer today, but it still relies on text based information. The immense popularity of iTunes, the emergence of audiobooks, and the availability of lectures, speeches, and podcasts online has re-established the oral word as a major mode of cognition. While both oral and visual make strong independent claims for authority in language, the hybridization of the two may be the most interesting aspect yet. The use of webcams and video sharing (YouTube) cannot be overlooked. Combined oral and visual modes of communication are becoming some of the most commonly used forms of communication and are becoming much more important in tertiary education. (However, few secondary or primary schools actually fully utilize this technology.)
Regardless, Ong is right: this transformation of the word is changing the way that we think. Further evidence of the move from print to electronic culture can be seen in the radically changing newspaper industry. The demand for print editions of newspapers is quickly diminishing, so companies are turning to the web to deliver their information and opinions. We are now a society of excessive multitasking and rampant attention deficit disorder. We imbibe information in short bursts: we read a few lines here, watch a 50 second video clip there, and we’re set. I’m not criticizing this revolution in society, nor was Ong. It’s just fascinating to take a step back sometimes and look at how much the word (and world) is changing.
Ong on YouTube link
9.2.09
Thoughts on Elbow
Elbow’s idealism is attractive because he makes himself accessible and identifiable with the writing student. He uses his failures in writing to relate to the average, struggling composition student. The free writing ideas presented are helpful; it is encouraging to hear someone as influential as Elbow endorsing the idea of “mess-making.” The problem I see with my students though is that they often never bother cleaning up the mess. The question I had during Tim’s presentation concerned evaluation. Elbow claims to only give positive feedback, so my question is how do students improve their writing? The article provided some insight in this area: “I stress my own conviction that the goodness or badness in a piece of writing is an ‘unknown’ and that the only trustworthy measuring instrument we have is the reactions of as many real readers as possible” (594).
The importance of finding one’s voice and really coming into the ensuing “sincerity” in one’s writing was powerful for me. I now understand this to be the key to expressive writing. Expressivism has always been attractive for me, but understanding its potential contribution to all aspects of writing is immense.
The importance of finding one’s voice and really coming into the ensuing “sincerity” in one’s writing was powerful for me. I now understand this to be the key to expressive writing. Expressivism has always been attractive for me, but understanding its potential contribution to all aspects of writing is immense.
Thoughts on Kinneavy
The religious influence on Kinneavy is of particular interest for me, for Catholicism also made a heavy impression on Walter Ong, the subject of my presentation. We see this with Elbow as well. In a way these authors seemed to look at composition as a spiritual act. Might the anxiety Kinneavy felt towards the transgressive aspects of literature be a result of his conservative social values?
It seems that Kinneavy, at least to some degree, deserves the acknowledgement he receives for his contributions to the field of composition and rhetoric. His ideas may be challenged, just as any other scholar, but the impact he made in helping to solidify a place for rhetoric in the college educational system is significant. I would like to read more of his work; the excerpts which Klayton provided for us were very intriguing. I’d like to find out more specifically about how his ideas in A Theory of Discourse have been used in composition instruction. Also, how and why did he have such a big impact on the standardized testing movement? To me this seems counteractive to the progress he was making in other areas of composition and rhetoric. His consideration of the implications of technology on composition is very important too. He was able to acknowledge the tremendous impact that technology has on language and communication.
It seems that Kinneavy, at least to some degree, deserves the acknowledgement he receives for his contributions to the field of composition and rhetoric. His ideas may be challenged, just as any other scholar, but the impact he made in helping to solidify a place for rhetoric in the college educational system is significant. I would like to read more of his work; the excerpts which Klayton provided for us were very intriguing. I’d like to find out more specifically about how his ideas in A Theory of Discourse have been used in composition instruction. Also, how and why did he have such a big impact on the standardized testing movement? To me this seems counteractive to the progress he was making in other areas of composition and rhetoric. His consideration of the implications of technology on composition is very important too. He was able to acknowledge the tremendous impact that technology has on language and communication.
1.2.09
Paul Kei Matsuda's "Process and Post-Process: A Discursive History"
Basically, this article looks at the name game of composition theory, especially regarding the process and post-process methods and how these terms, and the variety of ideas represented by them, apply to the field of L2 writing. Matsuda gives a solid review of the different approaches to grammar and composition theory in regard to L2 writing in the last 40 to 50 years. The current-traditional approach is well contrasted against the foundational ideas of the process movement. However, various scholars have challenged the labels given to certain ideas and have created new ones, attempting to redefine the boundaries of these approaches. For example, Faigley, Bizzell, and Berlin all, more or less, saw three philosophies represented in the process movement: expressive, cognitive, and social (72). The problem came when people like Trimbur decided that the social aspect should constitute its own movement, which he dubbed post-process (73). For me personally, I don’t see the big deal, and I feel Matsuda is leaning the same way. It doesn’t matter what you label it; the focus should be on the effectiveness of these practices and whether or not they are truly helping students become better writers. Matsuda’s ultimate purpose when discussing the post-process is “to show how such a term could mask the complexity of ideas to which it refers, and to caution against defining post-process as the complete rejection of all tenets of process pedagogy or theories” (78). Because Trimbur does not propose any new strategies, nor does he say anything really relevant, I see this as a moot point. Matsuda says “the post-process movement does not represent a unified theoretical front” (73). The main issue seems to be that different scholars rank the three process ideas in various degrees of importance, but these scholars are all still looking at the same ideas and simply putting brackets around the min different places.
There are critics like Kent who “construed ‘process’ as an attempt to develop ‘a generalized process or Big Theory’” (74). The author implies that Kent is misguided in this assertion, and rehashes the point that process writing is full of a “multiplicity of L2 writing theories and pedagogies” (65). I personally think the process approach has a great deal to offer in writing instruction. Acknowledging that students have something to say, helping them find their voice, encouraging creativity, reinforcing the revision process, and using student writing as a crucial text are all great ideas that can go a long way in improving students’ writing and potentially even their attitudes about writing.
There are critics like Kent who “construed ‘process’ as an attempt to develop ‘a generalized process or Big Theory’” (74). The author implies that Kent is misguided in this assertion, and rehashes the point that process writing is full of a “multiplicity of L2 writing theories and pedagogies” (65). I personally think the process approach has a great deal to offer in writing instruction. Acknowledging that students have something to say, helping them find their voice, encouraging creativity, reinforcing the revision process, and using student writing as a crucial text are all great ideas that can go a long way in improving students’ writing and potentially even their attitudes about writing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)