As discussed today in class, here are the steps to participate in this final assignment:
1. Post your article review by replying to this entry by April 29th, at 10:45 am. Your post should include a summary of the text, an explanation for why you think it is important, and how and why you think it is useful.
2. After you've posted your review, reply to at least three of your colleagues post (such as asking question/clarification, etc.) by Friday, May 3rd, at 11:59 pm.
3. Continue the conversation on your or others' entry up until Sunday, May 8th, by 11:49 pm.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNot going to lie, this article was painful.
ReplyDeleteSo this article by Lu and Horner called "Composing in a Global-Local Context: Careers, Mobility, Skills," starts out by discussing the difference in instrumentalist and critical pedagogies. One side says that it doesn't really teach writing and they ignore the needs of the students and impose their thoughts onto them, and the other side says that the opposite side is just supporting unjust social order. The authors determine and argue that teachers much find a way to balance both sides of the arguments for these pedagogies.
Throughout the whole article the uses and pros and cons of critical and instrumentalist pedagogies are, well I can’t debated, but basically it is questioned. What it came down to was that teachers need to be working with students on how they define career concerns and desires and where they fit into the world, and even how they would function. The author’s decide that this process should be done by listening to and analyzing student’s writings. After deciding this they, move on to mobility. In a roundabout way all they are saying is that students and teachers have to adjust differently to different types of mobility in society. The conclusion comes down to this, that writing can be used to deal with globalization’s impact on homes, work, organizations, and communities.
I think that both sides can make a case for being right or wrong. Are you supposed to build a better world for all or are you supposed to just fit into the world and go with it? I hate the response both. I believe in absolutes so the idea that there are two right answers is painfully irritating. Sure you should just go with the flow sometimes and build a better world others, isn’t that what we all do? The importance of this article seems to be the confusion of how to deal with change in the world or in your home. If you don’t start a change someone else will because people are just constantly seeking better answers for life, new ways to do things, and more and more answers. Maybe we should just define a new word that will define the balance between the two so there is a middle ground to stand on.
The articles ability to present the idea that these pedagogies can’t be cut and dry is a very useful thing because there are articles that discuss the extremes. Presenting the point that both sides need to meet in the middle is progressive, now lets just hope someone will define a new word for it. I say we call it critentalist, but what do I know.
Work Cited
Lu, Min-Zhan , and Bruce Horner. "Composing in a Global-Local Context: Careers, Mobility, Skills." National Council of Teachers of English 72.2 (2009): 113-133. Print.
We are all such an in-cohesive world with our own agenda and trying to make the world better as a whole seems impossible and unlikely and we are all left with the only option of trying to squeeze in somewhere and just go with it to make it to where we want. The battle between instrumental or practical teaching and its opposition in critical pedagogies is an intriguing discussion. Horner and Lu seem interesting to suggest using both when these two pedagogies are opposing…mentally mind-bending for sure…you picked a great article to discuss (I mean that sincerely; hard to convey true emotion in a blog…. “Blogging as a Social Action” Miller? True emotion is hidden in blogging..)
DeleteI’m guessing based on your post is to get us to understand that we need to acknowledge the constitutive relationship between these two pedagogies to help with global concerns, and to do so, we must embrace and use both types of opposed pedagogies….. whereas both is the answer or not, I’m not sure myself….I tend to go along more so with your thinking..1+1=2 …Yes or No…Black and White (Gray areas are infuriating but part of the world I guess) and this seems like one of those gray areas…..But your point on middle ground is valid. Through equal amounts of both is perhaps satisfactory….that way a balance, tedious maybe, is achieved. Moderation is helpful in some cases I think yes and no as extremes are necessary as well. It all depends on the situation….I don’t think I can give a solid answer to this situation but I think that a usage of both is the beneficial choice.
(nice attempt in choosing a term with “critentialist”…Microsoft Word doesn’t like it but I do)
I definitely agree that gray area's are irritating. For me it needs to be yes or no, not maybe, not um well sure I guess sometimes but not always how about today but not tomorrow, those are the most ridiculous answers someone could give me. If they want the best of two worlds they need to take part of each and combined them together, at least the pieces they want, and redefine it, not dance around between the two and try to pretend they are one today and the other tomorrow.
DeleteI feel like we are living in a liminal threshold of gray. Besides death and taxes (haha) there is nothing in absolute, concrete stone. The issue of dealing with the change of the world within your own life, is that not everyone is going to agree with the ways in which you are changing. It is because all people are not able to come up with a consensus about "the right way to change" but do want to change, that the world will NEVER stop changing. There is no black in white in how we should progress as the human race, but there is balance (grey) in knowing this.
DeleteBut how can you live in the day to day life feeling like everything is in gray??? I'm sorry I disagree with having no absolutes in life.
DeleteYeah, I think that it's just like anything else. There is a balance to everything. Once people experience the world outside academia, they tend to realize that: that nothing is absolute. It's just like the ol' tire argument for truckers: new tires, or re-treads? Well, re-treads are cheaper, but tend to come apart. That's probably not good if they're on your turning wheels, but what if you have a mix? Re-treads on the rear, maybe staggered where it isn't such a big deal if one of 'em pops. Of course, if all your tires are new, it's safer, but where's the fun in that? Of course, all re-treads would be dangerous, so that doesn't work either.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, the true answers almost never lie on the extreme side of things; there is usually some sort of balance. Pull some good ideas from either side, and I think you can often have something better than either one side. There can be some beauty in compromise, so I don't think it is necessarillly a good thing to strive for anything that is absolute.
I agree, though: Maybe it's time to come up with something new to work with that indicates less of a compromise and more of a concrete theory.
So you don't think that anything is absolute?
Delete@Whisper...
DeleteI think very few things are, actually, but the ambiguity is the beauty in it. I don't think if everything had a definite answer there would really be a discussion.
I think that even if there was a definite answer you would still have to discuss it because you would still need to prove that answer. Just my opinion though...
DeleteWow, I picked one of the most difficult articles ever. It's called, "Tuning the Sonic Playing Field: Teaching Ways of Knowing Sound in First Year Writing," by Katherine Fargo Ahern.
ReplyDeleteThe article deals with the notion of a "multimodal" pedagogy, where various forms of composition are studied, which include written, visual, and auditory literacy (75). Ahern argues that the multimodal approach is dangerous, because it creates a hierarchy when it comes to various forms of literacy (75-76).
Ahern argues that, "in order for students to gain rhetorical sensitivity in 'real world' situations, they must be allowed to express themselves in different modes and media, and thus engage in all available means of persuasion" (76). She then outlines a unit where she asks her students to listen to a genre of music that is unfamiliar to them, and link it to writing in a sociological manor (76). She talks about using describable musical terms and linking them to the practice of creating an auditory argument and linking in to the written composition to sort of augment the paper (79). In addition to all of this, Ahern creates a tuning metaphor in which, "Tuning focuses the listening of the performers to find agreed upon values, as much as it sets those values" (82). The idea is that the process of tuning models the idea that the performers work together to find an agreed-upon intonement prior to playing their music. At that point, the players can work together to communicate meaning.
Yes, this is where the article gets very confusing, but it seems that Ahern is point out that in order to study auditory composition, the class must first become in tune. In other words, there has to be context and understanding between learners in the classroom in order to communicate effectively by any means other than the written word.
I think this is a relevant conversation, because it challenges traditional teachings in the first year composition classroom. In times of technology, it seems that many institutions (as I have heard from many of my instructors) are requiring freshman composition professors implement some form of technological composition into the classroom. Just as visual literacy and argument is important, I think using elements of sound to complement the written word are important.
Could we create an auditory argument solely on its own, though? Especially considering the fact that most students in the freshman comp class probably don't have any musical experience. It seems like you could not create an argument using only sound like you can with using only images. Here, I am going on a tangent, but I want to ask the question: How important is it to teach "Ways of Knowing Sound" in freshman writing classes?
Work Cited:
Fargo Ahern, Katherine. "Tuning the Sonic Playing Field: Teaching Ways of Knowing Sound in First Year Writing." Computers and Composition 30.2 (2013): 75-86. Print.
I don't think in this day and age you can say that someone has no musical experience. With the exposure to all types of music on the radio, internet, movies, etc. everyone has had exposure to music. The type of exposure my not be lessons but you can still determine musical flows without any lessons. I think that it would be interesting to see this implemented into a classroom.
Delete@Whisper.....
DeleteYou have a really good point. I wasn't thinking about that, but it seems that people's knowledge of music and sound might be somewhat subconscious, like grammar is for many students.
The question is, then, how can we turn that subconscious knowledge into something concrete enough for thoughtful expression?
You can do it the same way you do with grammar, show them how they use it or experience it in life. Once someone is aware of it they can make more use of it, but until it is pointed out they will have no conception of the occurrence.
DeleteTo an extent I believe that a amalgamation of sound, text, and visuals can bolster the argument and make it contemporary. Thus '"Ways of Knowing Sound'" is important to a certain degree but not at the same level as written. A good point to make is the youtube videos we viewed in class on arguments. It had the combination of text and visuals and I did see an immensely strengthened argument.
DeleteEverybody has some sort of musical connection, tie and/or ability but I think that to make a whole entire argument using sound, whether freshman or not is daring. But it seems like an intriguing prospect to see or even to attempt it myself.
I believe that using too much of one technique be it sound or visual is just that-too much. I'm perhaps still a bit more old fashioned but written text for me holds most of the weight; a little sound and visual literacy isn't wrong- it's a positive addition as our minds learn through images and audio, but just inserting a little.
I don't think I'm that talented with music...consciously.
@ Miss Elizabeth Bennet: I agree with your statement about "using too much of one technique is too much" just because you have an assignment that works well with the class one day does not mean you should use it EVERYDAY. Because we live in such a fast-paced world, we should be fast-paced in the class room (both teachers and students) and switch up assignments and different techniques to reach the learning styles of everyone. I think it is an interesting concept to use sound in the classroom, and I have never really seen it implemented before. I truly believe that in a classroom, to reach all the learning styles of each student, all the senses should be included within the classroom, and using sound would appeal to a sense.
DeleteJust a quick question: do we assume that sound is music? I see a lot of discussion about music in the classroom, but what about other forms of sound?
DeleteIt would be a lot to ask a student to compose music to supplement their written work, and it may not say much at all if they just put it to a soundtrack. Interesting that people think those videos about argument were so good; I found them to be entertaining, but distracting from the main point. I would have had an easier time reading it, or watching a person talk about it. I guess this just points to differentiation of curriculum, again, doesn't it?
Good point @Trucker Creep. My thinking was somewhat narrow when considering the whole sound and its potential. But I do think that if applied the right way, much like using quotes in a paper, I think it might be useful. Again it all depends, in my opinion. The youtube videos in classes were a nice way of taking a step towards the changing and modernization but it requires finesse and understanding and a correct use of the techniques and I really do think a compelling piece can be created.
Delete@ I Present:...
DeleteYour thinking is not narrow. I don't expect anyone would think about the sound of footsteps when they think of incorporating sound in the writing classroom. :-)
I agree that there is a lot of potential. Also, remember how much of a challenge it can be to teach those quotes, though. I don't know if you read my rant further down the page, but it has to do with that. It seems that kids come so unprepared from the K-12 system, that the college course must focus on remediation rather than creative and progressive pedagogy.
I hate to be a complete pessimist, but it can be frustrating. I think of the ongoing battle for the English department and Education department to even collaborate on some simple issues; they wast so much time with their own pride, sometimes, that it's had to believe any creative energy can come out of either department. So, how do we expect the college to take on relevant and interesting challenges like teaching composition with sound, image, video, color, art, and whatever else?
I'm just trying to think of a solution to the remedial conundrum. I've spent time with freshman comp students (hell, even senior-level writers), and the results are far from promising. If we can't figure out how to teach students how to write, how can we teach them to be creative in other ways?
I'm not blaming the instructor; they have standards to meet, or guideline set forth by the department to adhere to, which is likely restrictive. It's the experience, as a whole, that is just a tad frustrating.
It is seriously mind boggling, to me, that there is apparently no cross-departmental collaboration at the college level (I'm sure it exists, but to what extent?). Everybody is stuck within their own discourse community. In a world where we are immersed in globalization, where it is evident that people must be versatile and know how to figure out how to get things done in diverse fields, why does the college teach those skills to all students in a meaningful way?
Here's what I'm thinking: When we graduate with a degree in English, what will employers think? Probably something like, "Ok, that person can communicate and follow written instruction. They may even be able to write the instructions" (I hate to say it, but, in my experience, this is how many people make generalizations). What if a college (say Metro, for fun) could show something different, though? What if English department students were to collaborate with Music department students in order to incorporate sound/words into each other's projects? What if the Psychology department students and Education department students were to collaborate with each other in order to develop more pertinent solutions to various questions? I have taken so many classes where I have done the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over. For what, right? I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but rather to ask what I believe to be a relevant question: for what? Seriously, after writing over a hundred reaction papers I have that skill down to a science, but how the hell with that serve me when I get a job for, I don't know, IBM? Is IBM going to ask their employees to write arbitrary reaction papers? Me thinks not! Sure, IBM probably asks their employees to do some silly stuff (often to avoid litigation), but reaction papers?
I think a cross-departmental collaborative learning experience in higher-ed would be invaluable, and offer a great service to students. To me, the discussion goes beyond the concept of bringing sound and words together. It's about bringing many things together to create skills and versatility; to offer students with an education that will make them stand out beyond the rest who have an undergraduate degree.
Again, another ramble. Ramble, ramble. :-)
I like the idea of using "multimodal" pedagogy. It sounds interesting, especially using music to help students learn how to write. Most teens if not all of them love music. They are probably more inclined to tune in to music sounds vs. opening up a book. If teachers can somehow incorporate music in their lessons as a creative means to teach them to write creatively or to create arguments and do it similar to the way artists create music, then they will most likely capture the attention of a lot of students. With the multimodal method teachers can reach more student, gain their interest, and hopefully their writing skills will improve. Teachers must keep up with the times, if music/sound is the next big thing for students, then why not use the tools of the students and use it to educate them to become writers better.
DeleteI really don't think it is a good idea to bring music and sound into a freshmen comp class. It will only confuse the already "nervous" first time college student. I also don't see the point in bringing music into the composition, how will it help in the writing process and product? I know for me, I can't listen to anything while studying, I get very distracted and can't focus on what I am doing. Maybe if some want to take a class with composition and music they can offer it, but I still don't see the point.
Delete@Jane Doe some students can only do their homework with sound. For example, I discovered this when observing my niece and nephew. They do great when they listen to their headphones, watching TV, or listening to music. There is something about sound that helps them focus. There were several times I got angry when at them for doing this and thought they were playing around. But after observing them, I learned this method works for them. They don't seem to do to that well without sound. For me, I need it to be very quiet if I'm studying something technical, other wise I like to have sound as a distraction, or its a way for me to multitask by watching a TV show and doing homework at the same time. I wish I could explain how this sound science works but I don't have such expertise. Whatever methods works to bring about the desired results I say bring it.
DeleteI'll be very interested to see the direction this goes in composition classes as the next generation of texters and multimedia students enter the college level. Personally I share Jane Doe's view when it comes to my writing. I absolutely cannot write with music on, but we are by far the outliers. In my observation class 90% of the students listen to music while they write, and struggle to write without it (such as during the TCAP) but even more so why couldn't music have the opposite effect of actually soothing the nervous freshman? To take it even further, the links between lyrics and composition often help students make connections that no amount of reading can address. Tupac has an entire novel on using music for poetry, but he extends it to the vocab that every first year comp student is using. There's an entire group of TED talks that shows how most students excel in their 5 paragraph essays, and first year term papers, if they are correlated to music. For some (such as myself) a class like this would be torturous, but for the vast majority it seems like the obvious next step in composition. I think Ahern's ultimate idea of a classroom that encompasses everything all at once is a bit unrealistic, but I also think if the comp class as we know it does not adapt to the media-crazy students coming along that it will begin to go the way of cursive, and for what we've seen about good writing, maybe it should.
DeleteI definitely think this is an interesting idea, but also think it would be hard to put into practice in the classroom. Many students would thrive on this type of activity, but many would just be lost and more confused. But that has more to do with learning style. If you are not an auditory learner, you won't get as much out of the lesson as someone who is. However, I do agree that in today's world, most people should have at least a basic knowledge of some music terms.
DeleteThat is interesting that 90% of kids need that input of music or sound when doing their work. Kids today are so used to being active with video games and t.v., they have a hard time shutting their brains off when it is time to sit still, be quiet, and do their homework. It makes sense that they would need that input in the background to ground themselves in order to focus on the work in front of them. If you make them sit and be quiet, their bodies will try to find that extra input and they will not be able to sit still and focus. Each child is so different today and requires different learning styles. I think teachers are not equipped enough to understand the different needs of these different children. If only they could understand and recognize what the child needs, it would be an "easy fix" to get them to focus in class.
DeleteI feel this way after researching it a little more. I still don't think students should be aloud to bring in their own music and do their own thing; they will not focus on the instruction. If they do it at home, that is a different thing. I think it also depends on what kind of music and how loud it is.
The promising and developing undergrad writing major is becoming more popular as it expands and expands to a wider variety of "disciplines." When writing majors were new to colleges, the main kinds of "discipline" was creative writing and journalistic. Now it’s more those two kinds of writing thus, English has a more adaptable major with more concentrations is making it stand out. Balzhiser and McLeod’s article, “The Undergraduate Writing Major: What is it? What Should it Be?” (2010) opens up relating a conference held by the CC Communications about the major of rhetoric and composition in 2004 which made it clear that this is still a developing major. The faculty acknowledged that they cannot concisely establish a strict pedagogy for the major yet, a general idea of what is required of the major should be conferred on. The questions and ambiguities of this growing major are becoming more evident as there is more to explore on the subject manner. They have found out about how composition studies has grown drastically over the years of them collecting data and shown how it is used in multiple different areas of study. But many majors are not focusing on composition studies as Balzhiser and McLeod state: "course offerings in English majors differ, sometimes wildly, across institutions" (418). As part of this discourse community of rhetoric and composition, this is relevant to today because English majors may offer different courses at different schools, some may focus on one area of study more then another, and composition may suffer because of this and thus fellow students will too. (would those learning be cheated out of a full, well-rounded education?) (How/ would you structure the writing major whether prospective educators or not?) Many majors in universities don't and that is causing a problem and I think this is a legitimate conversation. The collaboration on what writing major should receive is helpful and I believe is significant as a course that lets the students delve into the world of composition has beneficiary projection on students to achieve a greater understanding and appreciation of theories practice and rhetoric as important.
ReplyDeleteThis whole conversation is immensely noteworthy I think, as mentioned above in part and, for a few reasons that apply not only to those of us fellow English undergraduates, but to those outside the English community. Opening up students minds to writing, or English, not as basic skill but as a discipline, which Mike Rose’s article “The Exclusion of Language: Writing Instruction at the University” (1985) delves into a bit deeper would be significantly helpful in the compositional world. This article also segue ways into, from, or at the very least, an abstract connection to William Parker’s “Where do English Departments Come From” (1967). This takes us back to the beginning so that Balzhiser’s and McLeod’s piece continues to the bright and optimistic future English Comp and rhetoric holds in universities. Because this is not merely the English language course; “it is a liberal arts writing major,” an “integration of creative, literary, and professional writing” (Balzhiser and McLeod 419).
As mentioned above Parker’s article helped us view our past while Balzhiser and McLeod helped with insight into our futures as we cannot push forwards without being aware of the beginning which makes the holistic discussion important and useful today. Balzhiser and McLeod know this. They both acknowledge the different types of disciplines within the greater one of English. The English major is layered and so are we as distinguished disciplined writers with our own creativeness to how we approach our writing, how we write and what we write, stemming from our social influences,.(whether we be cognitivists, expressionist, fundamentalists...) Balzhiser and McLeod search forge our future.
Balzhiser, D. and McLeod, S. H. (2010) The Undergraduate Writing Major: What is it? What Should it Be? CCC 61(3): 415–433.
I appreciate you finding this article. Something that has frustrated me throughout this class has been that it seems that the authors spend so much time living in the past. While they have attempted to say lets make this progress they don't really seem to want to and just step backwards. This article seems to open a few more doors of discussion for the future based on the way it was described.
DeleteThat is a good point; but also take into consideration that the articles were written the past so they addressed concerns that were significant at the time to them and I'm not sure how they actually attempted to do anything to progress forwards and fix or find a solution they did make the first and perhaps most important step- they spoke about it; ignited the fire. Maybe it started future discussions and a answer has been achieved.
DeleteI thought it was a nice essay too, to round up the class. Sort of like a farewell conclusion and the possible answer to where to next for us.
Thanks!
I feel like if they have written them that long ago that there should be more progress now... if you get what I mean..?
DeleteTrue...I just saying also I'm not sure if there actually has been no progress at all. I 'd have to research that myself. But I totally get your point; after so many years there would be a breaththrough of some sort but I think that's the problem with theoretical study auch as compsition and rehotoric, nothing is really solid. Can anything be absolute or is it all opinions? Some scholars on the topic may disagree or not and that just creates further discussion-again.
DeleteBut great point.
What I don't understand is why all freshman take the same courses. I feel like this is part of their argument. If you are a chemistry major, the majority of the writing that you will be doing not only throughout your academic career but also after graduation is very different from the type of writing someone will do as a history major. Shouldn't the comp classes that they take be differentiated? This could get difficult in that most freshman are undeclared in their majors, but at the same time, there could still be different classes for students that want to go in a general direction.
DeleteI will say that in my experience at another University that I attended, the majority of the freshman and sophomore English classes (intro to lit, speech, freshman comp, etc.) were taught by grad students. Basically, they were doing it as a "favor" to their mentor teachers. I think the problem with change is that everyone see that it's a problem, but no one who actually has an power to change it cares enough to do so.
@rugby This is pretty much the age old argument of the US college learning mentality of those with degrees needing to be 'well-rounded individuals' and the only way to accomplish that (in their opinion) is to have forced interaction with a variety of subjects. You could ask the same question of why all of us English majors have to take math. The very fact that the US has 'intro' courses and the stigma of 100 or 1000 level courses that are completely irrelevant to our degrees answers your first topic.
DeleteI would contend though (and as the article suggests)that some kind of balance needs to be found. If they really were to offer differentiated writing Metro would need 156 different writing programs. Or 47 if you only count what they consider their 'core' degrees. But at the same time from teacher to teacher and school to school the program can vary so much that even 50 years later from the article we have not answered the question, what is an English degree?
You made a great and interesting and to me obvious, point @anonymous. To designate certain freshman writing courses in align with the degree program that student is aiming for is a interesting and unique prospect that I think may help propel and increase student's vigor for their career choice. It may even help them see at the beginning if that is what they really want to do. I think a few details should be hammered out but I think that has great potential.
DeleteI apologize...I meant @rugby made a good point on that. @anonymous brought up the potential issue to address, how many individual writing courses would a writing university need but I think that there could be a middle ground. General freshman class for composition should stay for those majors not able to adapt to a differing ENG course such as accounting major or economics. But I think that a ENG course could specialize a little to a history or anthropological or psychology major, as papers in each of these courses based on taking Intros in them, differ in varying degrees and on the professor themselves. Does it require work and perhaps a bit complexity? Yes. Is it worth the effort? I think so.
DeleteWhat is the story we all want to tell? Is it of our trip last summer—to Europe, to juvie, to the grocery store where you worked all summer? Is it of the life force leaving your mother's eyes that Tuesday afternoon, after which you've breathed a little more deeply in every breath? Our life stories, autobiographical or biographical, currently have very little place in university studies around the world. In her review of Fuchs and Howes' Teaching with Life Writing Texts, Victoria Elmwood seeks to give life stories a more solid place in the university classroom.
ReplyDeleteThough not the most thrilling read, Elmwood does succeed through her content—what she's reviewing is important. Beginning by breaking down the volume into the two parts (Genre Approaches and Cultural Approaches), she briefly tells of some examples given in each section and expands on their usefulness and importance, as well as how they are distinct from the other examples. Genre Approaches stretch from reading biographical writings of Western histories' well-known figures, to writing their own biographical life stories with diaries. The professors in these examples all agree that life stories are the fuel of culture and can easily fulfill all the requirements of a typical literature curriculum, but in a much more intimate and immediate way. The most exciting example I saw was that of Thomas R. Smith's class that he divides into two sections: the reading and studying of a few select historical autobiographies, and, second, a more in-depth study of autobiographies that disrupt social norms regarding a typical narrative. The students in Smith's class also present in class and show, according to Smith, a handle on the “rhetorical, social, and historical positioning of the different narrators that they study” (82). Another exciting example appears in the Cultural Approaches; students in China and the US used technology to work alongside each other throughout the semester via personal email communication. The culminating project was to write short biographies of their correspondent—an amazing example of real application of both shared human experience and rhetoric studies.
Elmwood's review is important because, though the field of life story studies is still only about 40 years old, it offers students a deeper and richer context through which to study rhetoric. Looking at how rhetoric affects real-life situations—instead of merely studying the academic world of rhetoric—the students gain a richer and more authentic understanding of why rhetoric is important.
Frankly, I would highly prefer this approach to rhetoric studies in comparison to the outdated articles that we've all read this semester, mostly due to the fact that the transfer of the content and meaning is lost on us as an audience. With audience being so important in rhetoric studies, the reading of life stories would offer a more wholesome view to the university's audience: students.
Check out the article (it's length is not daunting, I promise!):
Author: Victoria A. Elmwood
Article: Not Your Parents' Curriculum: Multiple Genres, Technologies, and Disciplines in the Life Writing Classroom. Review of “Teaching with Life Writing Texts” by Miriam Fuchs and Craig Howes.
Journal: College English
Volume: 72, No. 1
Date: September 2009
Pages: 80-88
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25653009
Well, I think it's important to have an advanced comp class with lengthy, dry articles to prepare those of us who are thinking about a graduate degree in English Comp for what is to come. I think that this sort of pedagogy would reach many more students, especially at the Freshman Comp level, rather than all the other stuff. Of course, the notion that we have to learn mundane, boring crap in freshman comp says a little something about the K-12 public education system. In general, the public education system is failing our students with mundane and redundant material, standardized tests, tracking, it is vastly underestimating students' intelligence and capability, and it is not preparing them for life outside high school.
DeleteSo, it then becomes necessary for the freshman comp classes to become remedial in order to make up for what k-12 failed to do in the first place, which sure makes it difficult to make writing fun.
Of course, we get to college, or "higher-ed," and the system fails us, again. Some classes may be interesting, but eventually we do everything over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and there is little to no creativity. It seems as thought its a right of passage; as though there are hoops that we must jump through just to say we were willing to put up with it. And when it's all said in done we have a piece of paper that quantifies our intelligence. Now, consider the word "quantify" and you'll have an idea of what I'm saying. That piece of paper that we hang on our wall after we graduate pigeon-holes us to whatever it is that we chose to major in. So, what will you do with your degree? Put it in a frame and hang it on the wall; I mean, think about it: what skills has the redundant hoop-jumping really taught us about collaborating with professionals, what it means to work a 40 to 60-hour week, leading a team of employees, etc.? Really nothing.
So what's my point? Classes like Advanced Comp may be a little more interesting if we had something to prepare us for what we would be doing. Instead, we have been stuck in a rut doing the same mundane busy-work. Every semester, you begin a class with no context and no idea of what is going to happen. There is no consistency, so it's no surprise that everything becomes redundant. Well, since departments at Metro don't seem to communicate with one another, or have too much pride in what they think they are doing to better the community, classes remain essentially remedial.
If you want more interesting pedagogy, you better start looking beyond the discourse community and reach out to other areas. Stop talking about the philosophy regarding different types of minds, and start thinking about how cross-departmental collaboration and creativity might do a service to the students who are paying the degree granting institution (also the college as a business) thousands upon thousands of dollars that they don't have (i.e. debt/loans), trying to learn something that will make them stand out when they take the big plunge into the real world.
If you want to critique the class, that's fine, I guess, but what about the big picture. I think the advanced comp class does an excellent job of fitting the model of the college/university.
Again, my point: Education as a whole is in desperate need of an overhaul. Until then, the majority of classes will seem remedial. It's nice that there are some creative instructors/institutions/departments out there, but the reason behind the boring classes lies deeper within the system.
Creepy Trucker apologizes for the rant...
I agree that the Education system needs to be reevaluated it is an awful position where the only thing we are focused on are standardized test; which I feel does not prepare the students for college. It is hard for teachers to stand out without worrying about losing their jobs because they are not teaching to these test. I like this advanced comp class but I think the college should require some parts of it to be taught in freshmen English. There are many things in the class that I wish I learned earlier in my college life. This goes back to the article I read and discussed for this blog which discusses these ideas to prepare students for the "real world."
DeleteAmen, TruckerCreep! I wholeheartedly agree with you. Our education system is a sad example of a society divided between the academic world and the 'real' world. College classes don't prepare us for managing a team, or writing endless memos, or even creating a budget. They teach skills which are only applicable to the academic world.
DeleteThe only solution, as a student, is to quickly determine what your professor wants to hear, then regurgitate it in every assignment.
God help us when we graduate...
I have an instructor that mentioned an ongoing discussion among academics about the necessity for institutions to progressively adapt and change their ways to avoid imminent failure. I think this was an interesting and bold statement on his part, which is why I'm meeting with him next week. I think the university model is old, and fails to address the needs of the private sector (where most of us will end up) in many ways.
DeletePersonally, I would like to look into it a little further, and possibly conduct some research in the area of higher-ed pedagogy. How interesting would it be to work as part of a team that changes the face of higher-ed? Again, the claim sounds a little bold to have not heard much about, but it might be interesting.
Just as the working world requires its employees to be increasingly versatile, the university needs to teach its students (patrons) with that in mind.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Michael Bunn’s article, “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and writing) in the Composition Classroom,” Bunn argues for the connection between reading assignments and writing assignments to be made explicitly clear in order for students to better understand how reading can improve their writing, and also to understand specific “writerly techniques” for their assigned written works. In this review I will discuss how Bunn’s arguments can help students improve their composition abilities and instructors improve their pedagogical techniques.
ReplyDeleteBunn says that through interviews with instructors and students he was able to discern that student’s value assigned writing tasks because of the opportunities they provide students to pursue personal goals or for preparation for post-college employment. Students are motivated to write, even if they don’t enjoy the class. However, students are less motivated to complete the reading assignments because they cannot see the value that the reading assignments provide for their writing assignments. Bunn tries to understand why students aren’t motivated to read by studying them in the classroom. He writes, “Examining the ways that writing instructors think about and teach reading-how they perceive connections between the processes of reading and writing and attempt to teach those connections to students-provides a more complete picture of what is happening in Composition classrooms” (P. 498). Through his article, Bunn tries to answer these 4 questions: To what extent do instructors theorize reading and writing as connected activities? To what extent are instructors explicitly teaching reading/writing connections in Composition Courses? What effect (if any) does students understanding of reading and writing connections have on their motivation to complete assigned reading? For instructors who are explicitly teaching reading-writing connections, what are some of the specific ways they are doing it (P. 500)? For the purposes of this article, Bunn defines reading by emphasizing the cooperation between readers and writers and stresses the importance of conceptualizing reading and writing as connected processes (P. 500-501).Through his surveys, Bunn discovered that nearly 100 percent of teachers said they viewed reading and writing as connected activities, but not all instructors explain or teach those connections to their students. Bunn says this is indicative of a disconnect between instructor theorization and instructor pedagogy. Most instructors share the underlying assumption that these connections are already clear to their students. Bunn would argue that first and foremost, instructors must make this connection explicitly clear. In support of his argument, Bunn discusses some of the benefits of making this connection clear, the most emphasized being that students reported that they would be more willing to complete assigned readings if the connection was made clear because then they could see how the readings were valuable and how it could be applied to their own writing (P.501-503).Of the instructors who said they try to make connections between the readings and writing assignments, most reported using model texts. These texts are used as displays of writing techniques and strategies that students can identify and try in their own writing or are used as examples of the specific genre that students will be assigned to write. The teacher’s goal in using this type of reading material is for students to identify specific techniques or writing strategies that they can use in their own writing. The problem with this idea is that even though teachers are providing models for their students, they don’t really teach students how to use them. Instructors want students to read for genre conventions but they don’t explain this to the students or teach them how to do it. Most students need more direction (P. 505-510).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBunn Article Cont
ReplyDeleteIn his conclusion, Bunn offers some suggestions for instructors on how to more effectively teach writing. 1-Think about how much you perceive reading and writing to be connected. Pedagogical awareness can help design a course in which the reading and writing assignments build upon and reinforce each other. 2-Select reading assignments and design writing tasks simultaneously with the intent of drawing upon the two to support each other. 3-Talk with students about connections between assignments. This can generate student motivation to complete the assigned reading and help them understand that reading and writing are connected activities. And 4- Teach students how to read model texts in ways that will inform the writing they will do. Teach them to read in ways that help them to develop their understanding of writerly strategies and techniques and that help them to identify genre conventions (P. 512).
Bunn’s article directly addresses some of the issues that instructors face when trying to figure out how to teach someone to write; where does one start? Most people are baffled with the logistics of how to teach writing; so much so that it is a common misconception that writing is an innate talent that only a few lucky ones possess. This is incorrect. Writing is a skill that needs to be practiced and studied, just like any other academic subject. Anybody can learn to do it. However, without the proper scaffolding, the task of learning to write can seem mysterious and daunting. Teaching students to write is also a skill that needs honing, but for so many instructors, there aren’t very many resources on the best ways to do this. In this article, Bunn attempts to provide instructors with data in order to help.
We’ve all heard the phrase, “to write well, you need to read often.” But rarely have discussions of how reading can help gone beyond this talking point. Like the instructors in Bunn’s article, those who do understand the meaning behind the catch phrase assume that the connection between reading and writing is so obvious that everyone understands it. In a general sense, most people probably do understand that what you read is the product of what someone else has written and vice versa. But in the classroom, where students are assigned heaps of homework, often with no direction on which assignments are more heavily weighted or which readings are going to be essential, many of us assume that we can get away with skipping some readings for the sake of doing the writing and as a consequence miss out on some essential information. Or, we go to the other extreme, trying to read every assignment and complete every writing task, so that we only get a surface reading of all the material and forget most of it. Both outcomes make it impossible to apply the readings to our own work. Most instructors will freely admit to us that we won’t be able to read everything assigned, but leave the task of deciding what materials to skip up to the student, at the risk of the student missing out on fundamental information.
Bunn Cont Again
ReplyDeleteAnother misconception is that all writing is the same. But academic essays, creative works, journalism and blogs all have a distinct flavor to them and mastering any of these formats takes time, analysis of good examples of each kind of writing and practice with lots of direction. Simply throwing out a term and assuming the students know what distinguishes that form of writing from any other, without giving the student any prior information is like throwing a toddler in the deep end and walking away. As students, we need meaningful instruction and thoughtful scaffolding for each assignment. Bunn’s research supports this idea in that instructors’ assumptions about student knowledge are often incorrect.
What Bunn is arguing for is a solution to the confusion and frustration that many students feel. Often, especially in college, we feel like we should know everything already, because the instructor expects us to. The expectation as we perceive it is that we should be able to tell from our readings, all that we need to know on a subject. But as I mentioned earlier, sometimes we don’t have the time or motivation to read everything carefully, and we must prioritize. Further, sometimes we don’t understand the writings or completely misunderstand them, and then they are of no use to us.
As anyone will tell you, the purpose of going to school is to learn, and the purpose of taking a writing class is to learn how to write. I absolutely believe that reading and writing are connected, but knowing how to study and utilize reading assignments about writing is very difficult for students, many of which have never studied writing as a stand-alone subject. Knowing how to read the rhetorical essays of any composition argument can be incredibly frustrating for someone unfamiliar with the language. And then being asked to write something without an example to follow can be even more frustrating. For the sake of helping students wade through the murky, confusing waters of composition studies, instructors must provide examples of the type of writing they want the students to write, analyze the examples with the class, so that every student is let in on the techniques and rules for that specific type of writing and give students multiple opportunities to practice and learn from their mistakes. As in Tawnya’s classroom, the reading should be a model for the student’s writing and the connections between the two made explicit.
In this article, Michael Bunn is arguing that instructors not only use reading assignments as scaffolding for their students’ writing assignments, but is also arguing that instructors must make the purpose and connection between each reading and writing assignment explicit, while analyzing with the students the rhetorical choices the author made, techniques and how the students might apply this to their own writing. In the section above, I aired many grievances with my experience of writing classes, and tried to describe the absolute befuddlement in which I am entangled on a day to day basis. I believe Bunn’s argument and endorsement of pedagogical techniques is the way to correct the ineffective methods many instructors practice. As a whole, by de-mystifying the writing process, and helping students understand specific techniques, the task of completing assigned written works won’t seem so nerve-wracking and many students who never really felt much joy in the writing process might come to better appreciate it.Also, as I mentioned above, many instructors don’t understand why their pedagogical techniques might not be helpful to many students and by studying the activities in a composition classroom, Bunn was able to identify specific assumptions that are detrimental to the learning process. When instructors don’t get feedback on their pedagogical techniques, they cannot improve. Bunn’s article, by providing helpful data, was written as much for the students as it was for the instructors. By following his prescribed method, both may benefit and become masters of their crafts.
The more you read the better writer you are and will become. This has become abundantly clear. Because of the way English Composition classes are structured, the complex connection between the two disciplines is justified. Reading and writing with complexity takes years and years of practice. Literacy is thus gained when a deeply rooted understanding of the ways in which others express themselves is mastered. What we can learn from them and how we can apply it to our own writing is crucial. I think it takes a patient professor to teach composition and theory. The professor must make learning enjoyable. He/she cannot take themselves or others too seriously. It is vital, especially in the early stages of writing development to help students understand that this small activity that they are learning right now, can stay with them for the rest of their lives. If the professor is able to get students attention in this way, students may be more apt to press themselves in English courses and put a significant amount of time in study just as they would Math or Science. I think with the right composition teacher, both reading and writing as a connected activity, can help a student of any discipline become motivated to reach a higher level of literacy. I agree with Bunn’s technique of asking questions and then answering them. His suggested pedagogical techniques can help us all find how reading and writing are ultimately connected.
DeleteI agree with you but I want to emphasize Bunn's main point that the reading assignments should be used as an example of how students are supposed to structer their own written works. Instead of studying the Philosophy of writing, it would be more useful for students to see and analyze how different types of writing should work, so that they may apply and practice the same techniques that they see in their readings. I'm a huge fan of Bunn's arguments and would love to take a writing class structured in a similar way.
DeleteOnce again, it's that level of expectation that instructors are expecting their students to already know how to read and to look for genre conventions. At what grade level should students be taught how to look for such conventions? Anyways, if instructors are expecting their students to write for genre conventions, then yes, they should explain what is to expected and review the assignment so that the students have a clear understanding of not only what is expected, but know how to do the required assignment. Otherwise, it seems like a waste of time for professors to assume that their students should already know how to do certain things; in a perfect world students would, but unfortunately, too many students are performing poorly with reading and writing assignments because they are not connecting with the teacher's methods. To write well, the students must read, and keep on reading.
DeleteI agree @NinjaKitty. Most college lever professors (if they're actually the ones teaching the class) assume that these are skills that students learn in high school, so they don't practice them anymore. They assume that it will stay with them. But I know highschoolers who are much better at connecting their reading with their writing because they do it regularly! I don't know if this is indicative of HS teachers doing a better job, but they have their students practicing the same skills over and over again, basically for 4 years. That's the problem with higher education. You only have your students for roughly 3 hours a week. Plus, you don't have other teachers to back you up. You aren't collaborating with the history teacher to make sure that they are teaching the same principles when it comes to reading and writing about historical texts.
DeleteWe assume that college professors should be better at their jobs than they are, but in reality, they don't have much to work with, so they really have to cut to the chase.
I glad you brought this up, because it was actually mentioned in the article. Bunn says that High School teachers expect these different forms of writing to be taught in college, and college professors expect that students have already learned them. So students are not getting this instruction at all. I also would like to point out that this article is meant to help freshmen composition instructors, so I think it's a good argument for that grade level. However, I never was taught the difference between writing an essay, review, critique or analysis, among other things, so its been pretty difficult for me to figure out the different aims of each. Even my into writing course here at Metro, was all creative writing, which was fun, but not very helpful when it comes to studying composition or rhetoric. I think High school teacher should at least be attempting to show that there is a difference, but as we all know, instructors at all levels have so many things that they need to get us to attempt, that no one really has the time. I think when it comes to stucturing the progression of classes, adminstrators and instructors need to communicate better about what their expectations are, so that we dont have these HUGE gaps in our education.
DeleteI think this fits perfectly in one of those areas where teaching to the test is incredibly counter-productive to what the students will actually experience in college. As you pointed out that this type of instruction is missing at the High School level, sadly it is because it is not part of the current tests. I struggled with this myself coming into Metro because one of our first assignments was to critique a famous author. Well there's no portion for that on standardized testing, and as you said, the college professors had the expectation that we had been taught this already. I'm certainly not advocating that we need to add a broader spectrum to the testing so that these basics will be covered, more so that the narrower these tests become, the wider the gap will be in what this article is addressing.
DeleteWorks Cited
ReplyDeleteBunn, Michael. “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and writing) in the
Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication 64:3 (2013) web. 20 2013.http://owww.ncte.org.skyline.ucdenver.edu/library/NCTEFiles/resources/journals/ccc/0643-feb2013/ccc0643motivation.pdf
ReplyDeleteIn his article entitled, “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the Classroom” Michael Bunn argues that many teachers’ beliefs about reading and writing (in connection) are not taught in all levels of school, but they should be connected. Through the importance of the reading-writing connection, Bunn introduces ways to apply this connection in order to foster a holistic learning experience within the classroom of all grade levels.
In his essay, Bunn begins by acknowledging the burning question that all English educators consider when teaching reading and writing, “How can we teach reading in a way that motivates students with the course writing assignments?” (498). Students of all grade levels are not interested in writing which in turn, does not motivate students to want to learn how to write better. It is not that these students do not want to learn how to write better—because they do, but students are not motivated to become better writers. Connecting reading with writing, students (especially those who are avid readers) will be much more inclined to write and understand the importance of writing. Through this initial question, the foundation of the reading-writing connection within the classroom is addressed—teacher pedagogy with classroom instruction. There is a large gap between the instructor education beliefs and the ways instruction is implemented within the classroom. Data found from his instructor surveys and interviews, Bunn states, “The ways in which teachers teach or don’t teach reading in connection with writing gives a complete picture of what is actually happening in composition classrooms” (498). After speaking with many educators of all grade levels, Bunn did not see a connection between the pedagogies of teachers and classroom instruction. Bunn advises teachers of all grade levels to understand the developmental power behind the reading-writing connection. The strategy behind the use of a model text not only guides the writer by providing an example of a specific genre, but the model “provides writing techniques and strategies” that all students are able to use in their writing (502). Model texts allow students to reflect and develop their own writing from a leading example; however, the importance of the model text is that students actually read the text and look for techniques and styles to use within their piece of writing. Bunn ends his essay on a helpful note by providing the following guidelines: teacher reflection about the importance of the reading-writing connection, talking with students about the connections within the reading, implementing those connections explicitly within their piece of writing, and teaching students how to use model texts within their writing. Students will be much more successful in both reading and writing as long as the connection between the two is clear and concise throughout the classroom.
Bunn Cont.
ReplyDeleteThis article holds a high importance for not only educators, but students striving to be successful in the world. I feel as the American Education System is at a stand-still with getting our students to become better readers and writers. In my own schooling and classroom observations, I have witnessed countless students hesitant to reading or writing. It is because of my of my past experiences that I know my responsibility of becoming English teacher is to inspire my students, and show them the usefulness behind reading and writing. No, I am not speaking about having my future 8th graders read classic literature and write an analysis about the piece that they read. That would not be a useful tool to have in their lives; and let us face it, how many of my students will actually become English majors in college? Not many. That is why the connection between reading and writing will be introduced and taught in a way that is relevant and useful in their lives. For example, as a class we could read an article about volunteer organizations and the students will visually represent (through writing) the importance of the organization, and how it is important to their life. We can get even more specific about using the reading-writing connection as a direct tool in analyzing (reading) resumes and creating (writing) their own resumes. Separating reading and writing does not make any sense because without writing there would not be anything to read, and without reading there would not be anything to inspire a new piece of writing. Essentially, both reading and writing go hand-in-hand and that is how it should be taught in the classroom.
Bunn’s article is extremely useful for the teachers who struggle to get their students to read, write or do both. One of my personal beliefs about education is that everything that is learned needs to be continuous and that is what Bunn presents to his audience, continuum within reading and writing. There are already so many aspects to a student’s life that are complicated and separated from the rest of the world, so why should the various topics that a student learns about be any different? As future educators, we should take the pressure off of our students and create a smooth transition into the different topics that we are teaching to our students. Through reading-writing connectivity, there is no choppiness within the classroom environment, and no gap to bridge in assignments. Teachers should understand the importance of the reading-writing connection because it will be extremely helpful to the students in their classroom. If students are presented with an interesting mentor text, the ideas and inspiration to write a piece started because of that mentor text (all while not plagiarizing, of course). Teachers will find this article useful for a rationale behind employing reading and writing together within their classroom.
I encourage every teacher of every grade level to read Bunn’s article. The reading-writing connection will bridge the gap in the English education community. From the younger grade levels to the post secondary courses, students will benefit from the use of the connection of using reading and writing together, and teachers will appreciate the complexity of their students’ reading and writing skills.
Works Cited:
Bunn, Michael. “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and writing) in the
Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication. Vol 64 (2012)496-516. Web. 27 April 2013.
I saw Bunn's argument differently. I read the same article as you, but to me it seemed like he was arguing for the reverse. He was saying, that students are more motivated to write because they see the intrinsic value and understand how useful it can be, but they are not willing to do the assigned readings because they view them as a waste of time and don't understand how the readings can help them become better writers.
DeleteI agree with you that the article addresses that students find intrinsic value in writing. However, one of my main points that I gained from the article is the usage of model texts in order to add more motivation to the reading-writing connection. If students see in a model what is expected of them, they will be much more inclined to produce a text in a similar format. Bunn is trying to cap the bridge between those who want to write, but do not find value in reading along with their writing. When reading this article, I was also connecting with a younger age group (8th grade) rather than college students. I have seen so many students not motivated to write, and it is not because they had to read a text and write about it. These students I was thinking about do not see the intrinsic value in writing.
DeleteThank you for replying to my very long post! I thought it was a great article.
Well I definitely agree that he was trying to bridge the gap, I think that was the main point. But that's interesting that you brought up different age groups. I was looking at this from a college student standpoint. I know I sometimes dont feel like, (or do) the readings, butI will not miss a writing assignment. Its pretty cool that you applied it to another age group though, the specifics might be different, but the overall argument is the same.
DeleteThomas J. Stewart puts himself into a lion’s cage in his article “Aloneness and the Complicated Selves of Donald M. Murray,” Stewart argues that the preservation and integration of “self” during the composing process is vital for a writer attempting to produce any text worthy of critical acclaim. He says that, “to produce good writing, the self needs the other self to fulfill its more complex roles” (52). By using Murray as a model, he continues to suggest that within each writer there exists a number of disconnected psyche’s collaborating toward achieving ultimate self examination. “His solitude turns out to be an interesting place—a writing factory in which two “selves” cooperate and contend as they produce a text, the text itself learns to think and talk and teach, and ghosts watch from the shadows” (47). This inner perspective, in turn, creates an inspiring whirlpool of ideas and transforms singular entities of the mind, into much larger movements towards the use of rhetoric in composition studies. Stewart argues that Murray’s expressivism also reveals a deeper need to provide balance between his conflicting selves. Berthoff notes, “A writer is in dialogue with his various selves and with his audience” (650) Stewart paints Murray as a struggling and conflicted author whose realism derived from his loneliness. When alone, he could listen to several voices going through his mind. From those often uncooperative internal dilemmas, he could transcribe his thoughts from his knowledge and experience. “The self speaks, the other self listens and responds. The self proposes, the other self considers. The self makes, the other self evaluates. The two selves collaborate…” (52)
ReplyDeleteStewart, above all wanted to complicate Murray’s model, in order that he could place it into theoretical contexts, so that it would be further recognized and preserved by those participating in composition classrooms as well as discussions. He says, “If aloneness doesn’t fit theoretically, then it can be dismissed as nothing more than the subjective testimony of one writer. If, on the other hand, there is a theoretical fit, then the theory offers a foundation for others to build upon Murray’s “informed guesses” (54).
Yet, all this said, Trimbur counters, as in any conversation with disagreements.
He says, “the pedagogical goal is to negotiate a common language in the classroom, to draw students into a wider consensus and to initiate them into conversation” (743). In agreement, Elbow notes Harris as saying, aggressively, “we should give up on the concept of expressive discourse, acknowledging that it is virtually meaningless because it is so poorly defined and that it is probably poorly defined because it is not a real category” (933).
By understanding the contributions other writers have made to the discipline of composition, the new scholar can come to a conclusion as to which theories to accept and which one’s to reject. We can then choose how we structure our own writing. So, whether you agree with Rohman and Wiecke when they say, “anytime anybody is awake and reacting to life around him, he is bringing to bear although perhaps unconsciously his entire human self, his past perceptions, his memory, his emotional life, and his intellectual life and so on. (226), or choose to validate Trimbur’s, “learning cannot be understood on strictly cognitive grounds, it means rather joining new communities and taking part in new conversations” (736-737), you can bet that the conversation will continue to appear in different contexts, in newly formulated theories, in and around college classrooms and beyond.
The best conclusion, then, may be found in Bruffree’s notation of Oakeshott as saying, “We are the inheritors…of a conversation, begun in the primeval forests and extended and made more articulate in the course of centuries. He continues, “it is a conversation which goes on both in public, and within each of ourselves” (548)
I really like the issue brought up about the preservation and integration of the self into composition. Writing has always seemed very personal to me, which is why I think its so touchy when someone is a poor writer. They really are vulnerable and open in that situation. I also thought it was interesting that the author of this article was discussing disconnected psyche's collaborating for self-examination. It's kind of trippy and reminds me of a scitzophrenic (sp?) person or someone with multiple personalities. I would like to look at some psychological evidence for this. But the line you mentioned about the pedagogical goal being to negotiate a common language in the classroom made a lot of sense, and i think if everyone in the classroom knew exactly what language they were speaking, it would make learning a heck of a lot easier.
DeleteI love how these scholars want to eliminate an entire rhetorical approach (expressivist) simply because they disagree with it. Way to be open minded!
DeleteI'm very curious as to your take on the article as I don't really want to read it, but at the same time I want to know if it comes across as narrow-minded as Laredo mentioned. Stephen King often talks about his writing style, and the use of the dual-self, but by no means is this common for everyone. And then to assert that expressionism should be abolished because of lack of understanding is absurd. It reminds me of the talks we've had about the golden age of language, or back when we had 'proper English'. It sounds like he wants to fix the rhetoric discussion at this point and just never allow for change or adaptation (which is much of what the expressivists are trying to do with a stale discussion) That is why I'd like to hear your take though, as clearly that quote bothered me, and I could be taking it completely out of context.
DeleteMaybe it was just me, but this article seemed complicated because of the massive amount of quotes and citations used in your response. I agree with Anonymous2013, I would like to hear your take on it because I didn't gather that either. However, the information presented is quite interesting in the aspect of writers and the various psyches that writers could go through. I'm not entirely sure if I believe in the dual-self for me when I write, but I do write differently depending on my mood or the music I'm listening to.
DeleteWell I definitely think the expressivists have their place. It doesn't work for everything, but there is value in expressive writing, espcially when you are dealing with meaning and philosophy. Im actually surprised that so many people are so against it. As a writer, I always assumed that most other writers would be into it for the same reasons that I am. To understand myself, life, and the universe.
DeleteI agree with you Sonny. Too me, writing is fun and a way to express myself (when doing the type of writing I like, which, doesn't necessarily include academic). Through all of that, I do figure out more things about myself and life.
DeleteWorks Cited
ReplyDeleteBerthoff, Ann E. “Learning the Uses of Chaos” The Norton Book
of Composition Studies.Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W.W.
Norton and Company, 2009. 647-651
Bruffee, Kenneth A. “Collaborative Learning and the Conversation
of Mankind” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed.
Susan Miller. New York: W.W. Norton andCompany, 2009. 545-562
Elbow, Peter. “Some Thoughts on Expressive Discourse: A Review
Essay.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan
Miller. New York:W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. 933-942
Rohman & Wiecke. “from Pre-Writing: The Construction and
Application of Models for Concept Formation in Writing.” The
Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New
York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. 216-227
Stewart, Thomas J. “Aloneness and the Complicated Selves of
Donald M. Murray” Composition Studies: 39.2 (2011): 45-60:
19 April 2013
Trimbur, John. “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative
Learning” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan
Miller. New York: W.W.Norton and Company,2009 733-747
The article I chose to read, Unpredictable Encounters: Religious Discourse, Sexuality, and the Free Excersize of Rhetoric, was from a journal called College English, and it was written by a fellow named TJ Geiger II. Geiger’s main argument in this article is that LGBT issues, sexuality in general, and Religious discourse have been absent from the composition classroom for far too long, and he advocates for the implementation of sexuality and religion as a site for inquiry in the composition classroom (248). He acknowledges that these are understandably controversial subjects, but argues that they can, “engage discourses that compel and repel us, figuring out together how to deploy ethical writing and research practices in the midst of encounters that unsettle, shock, and confuse us” (251). He makes note that the typical depictions of LGBT and faith communities are shown when they intersect only in conflict without taking into consideration that not all Christians are anti-gay, not all gays are anti-Christian, and that plenty of Christians can be either gay or supportive of gay rights. He argues that pushing for these subjects to be discussed in a composition classroom setting would allow for more elaboration and more clarification on the variety of ways that these two subjects impact people’s lives other than just the negatives. In general, he supports these topics for discussion because it could prove that there is more than just a stark contrast between the two types of people.
ReplyDeleteThis article is incredibly important because it brings up good points about why these types of controversial and taboo subjects have been avoided in the past, but how they can help students reach a better understanding of the topics going forward. I completely agree with that, however, I have my reservations. While I am a supporter of the LGBT community, and would love for there to be a better understanding of the struggles these people face, I feel like, as a prospective teacher, it would be impossible to present this type of information to my students, or ask them to write about these issues, without showing an obvious bias. It would be my hope that all students would be like-minded and agree that gays should be able to get married, or whatever, but the fact is that there are some people, religious or not, who disagree with the LGBT lifestyle in general, and for whatever reason that is, they are well within their rights to express their opinions on the matter. As a teacher, I’ll be expected to keep an open mind, just as I would ask them to, and it would be really difficult to not judge my students based on their opinions on the matter. More than that, though, if these students workshop one-another’s’ writing, someone is bound to get offended somewhere along the line and it’s potentially unnecessary conflict and perhaps even fighting. So, while I do like the idea Geiger presents about implementing these controversial subjects, I also feel like it’s very much possible that the composition classroom isn’t the place for it. Students should certainly be taught about all angles of these subjects, and not be discouraged if they choose to write on these subjects, but it should not be forced. They should probably learn about it in a social studies class, behavioral science class, political class, or any class that’s better suited to work around the controversial subjects of the world while the composition class should focus more on the mechanics of writing, rather than the content.
Works Cited:
Geiger, T J, II. "Unpredictable Encounters: Religious Discourse, Sexuality, and the Free Exercise of Rhetoric." College English 75.3 (2013): 248-69. Jan. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. .
As an English degree with a minor in Religious Studies your blog sparked me to respond, so thank you. I believe that these are two stark issues. LGBT is not, from extensive research and study plus personal experience with all three of the Abrahamic faiths that I have reached a contradiction with Geiger's thesis. Gays are expressly forbidden by these religions; especially Christianity. At least the one I know/study and follow. You see I notice a oxymoron with the term in my opinion, "Gay Christian"...(Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and more) but in the theological world I notice a running away from the true teachings and a "modernization" that is turning it's back on the true message...(A Gay Christian Bible that came out last year is one big example in a sea of many.)
DeleteThe support of gays within religion, and I'm going to crutch on Christianity, as you mentioned it within your blog is so oppositional and irrelevant in the compositional world as I see that you mentioned that as well.
Discussion of it will prove them as extreme contradictory sides. When, as a class, we discussed LGBT issue in composition, I can't remember the article nor can I find it, why should sexuality be addressed? An article as a class, most of us agreed that the article should be based on the actual piece itself. Sexuality is not relevant in this aspect and to introduce them as Grieger supposedly wants to does not appear to open up any door beneficial to this discourse community unless as you mentioned, it was involved with a social anthropological religious discussion but not in this. (I think it was "Composting as a Woman" Flynn but I could be wrong. )
Like you mentioned and which I agree, there is a place and time for everything to be discussed but I too disagree with Geiger, if it really is the case that if this topic should be incorporated in the rhetoric realm is nonsensical.
Thanks!
Without getting into opinions on the matter too much, I found myself getting somewhat offended at the first part of your response. And then I realized: This is exactly why these issues don't belong in composition classrooms. This isn't a debate class. This isn't a religion class. In the end it's about the quality of the written work, not the content. Bringing these subjects in, as they are oppositional, would cause nothing but disagreements, formation of separate social groups, and hurt feelings. And this would all be with or without intention to do so. We can't set aside our personal beliefs one hundred percent of the time to read a piece of work unbiased, because whether we admit to it or not, we are forming opinions about the author of the work whether those be positive or negative. While we might sit there and silently critique the "correctness" of that author's work, inside we are judging. It's just, like you said, irrelevant, and will cause too much controversy for a composition classroom setting.
DeleteI think with very much sensitivity I will address you both. :) I have a lot of calmness towards this subject. First, I feel that the information presented by @miss bennet while the accuracy of the scriptural text could have been presented in a better way. However, I think that this is where the skills of an educational major would really need to come in. I had the pleasure of have a teacher in high school who was very able to discuss any topic with out letting opinions and views effect grading, as well as that my teacher also never told the classroom their view. This I think was one of the most important acts that a teacher can have. By not telling the class their opinion they left it open for every side of the argument/view to expressed. The teacher was also very careful not to let the comments be attacking or rude, but strictly the point was to inform on different views. Everyone being raised in a different environment will form different opinions and unless they have an environment to learn the other side without judgement or hurt, how can they really know what the other side feels. While it may take sometime to integrate these subjects into school, I feel like it would not really hurt. People will write about anything, and by saying that it should have no religion or sexuality will only shelter students from learning the world. If someone writes a beautiful piece on their experiences will you discount it completely if they want to include their religious view or their sexuality? Just a thought to consider.
DeleteI hope that you both can understand this. Thanks :)
Well, as none offense is meant , as I responded and mention in my response, a couple of times in fact, that this was purely my opinion and I completly understood that and acknowledged that. No offense was meant because I wrote in an academic style that had factual basis as the blog orignally created by #Misery Signals. This is a blog environment and with the free flow writing while staying academically professional, I was utilizing my background knowledge and research from the topic from prior learning and applied to here #Whispers. In the matter of the Grieger article that stated that he wanted to introduce religion and gay intermixed explicitly in the composional world. I was responding to that piece whereas I also mention that as a class we dicusssed the quality of the peice of writing someone writes; not their sexual orientation. If they mention that is the author's choice and as we've also took notice of we naturally make judments on others based on who we are. Grieger wished to explicitly talk about this so I sated that this would create dissension and as #Misery Signals has agreed, would only cause further contention and not truly hold a place in the compositional and rhetoric world. Even though yes it does maybe in some way open up and involve some insight into the education world with these two topics composition and rhetoric is not the correct place; not that it shouldn't be discussed at all as you asked us if "someone writes a beautiful piece on their experiences will you discount it completely if they want to include their religious view or their sexuality?" I never said the topics should be banned or not discussed, I said that they don't belong in the compositional world.
DeleteThanks!
Why don't they belong though if that's what an author chooses to include as part of the discussion? Are we not open to talk about the pieces in an educational environment just because they are included in their composition? Why do we get to decide what does and what doesn't get talked about? Shouldn't we want to have a well rounded view that includes the all sides of the issue?
DeleteHi @Whisper,
DeleteAgain what I said was that there is nothing wrong with discussing those topics but in my opinion in the academic manner these two topics don't necessarily belong in the rhetoric world. I never stated that that do not get be included because Grieger did that; I said that it should not be in composition class; not any class at all. I never said ignore it because it's in composition; I said that it does not belong in this area. Does it benefit a advance composition and theories course? Or is it more suited for a theological or philosophical based course?
I think that this discussion can be implemented anywhere. For me this topic no different than the discussion we had in class about women in writing. That's why I question why it shouldn't be involved in the composition class.
DeleteI think students should have the right to choose to talk about these topics. If that's what they want to do, as a teacher, I would never read a paper on the subject, hand it back, and tell them to write about something different. My only concern would be if a teacher requires students to write about these topics. Understandably, most students wouldn't be comfortable with it for whatever reasons, and I would never want to put my students in a position where they would feel vulnerable. For me, it's not so much that it should be left out of the composition class entirely, but that it shouldn't be enforced.
DeleteMy two cents: I don't think that the topics of sexuality and religion should be taboo, nor do I think they should be explicitly assigned. If the students choose to discuss these hot button issues, fine. But when a teacher assigns a reading based solely on the author's sexuality or beliefs, that's when a line is crossed. I'm one of those people who thinks that, strangely enough, the writing should stand for itself. That's why I get a little miffed when something is assigned because it falls under the category of 'religion' or 'LGBT' or even "women's issues". I'd much prefer to study an author/article because of the quality of its content, and not because it's been labeled as a hot button topic.
DeleteFirst of all, I am a supporter of the LGBTQ community.
DeleteI do agree that it is too difficult to bring these subjects up in a classroom. I don't know why it is so important to bring sexuality and LGBTQ discussions into the classroom anyway. Why does it have to be these two subjects. Why can't it be something else more universal for the students to ponder on and dive into their creative writing. It is a writing class not a sexuality and gay class wanting to explore everyone's feelings on these issue's. If one is confused about the gay community or their own sexuality, then they can inquire it on their own.
I do agree though that the younger population do need to understand more about LGBTQ and sexuality, but I don't think we need to bring it up in our composition classes.
If I had not put that I was a supporter of the LGBTQ community, some of you would have made your own assumptions of me and placed me in my own category. This is why it is so important not to bring such touchy subjects into a classroom of such young minds on these topics.
I agree with both Laredo and Jane. These really shouldn't be taboo subjects, but unfortunately they really are. And I agree, Jane, that it shouldn't have to be these two subjects. I remember when I was in high school it was all about abortion and gun control. Before that, it was animal testing, and other such things. Hot button topics change all the time, and we're just in a time right now where they're posed as two major taboos that are portrayed as stark opposites of each other...which I would argue that they aren't...but that's neither here nor there. We definitely shouldn't discourage students from writing about whatever they want to, but it should also not be pressed to attempt to make it more comfortable.
DeleteWhat a heated discussion. "Can't we all just get along?"
DeleteAs far as LGBTQ-- is the bigger issue at hand is whether students should be allowed to talk about their sexuality in the classroom or is the issue of students being able to write on LGBTQ topics? In my classroom experience, a few students openly expressed they were a part of that community. At first it was shocking to hear how open they were with the class. No one spoke ill of them. And secondly, I commended them from being free to be who they are. On a personal level I thought that their openness allowed others who were different than them to connect with them. It's ironic that when we got together and workshopped each other's papers, those who were a part of the LGBTQ community did not ones write about such topics, instead those who were not a part of that community their main characters were. I didn't find what they wrote to be offensive, and I didn't take it personally, it was fiction--meaning they were free to write about any character with any background with any plot. Actually, I thought their stories were interesting. I'm just saying.
It is interesting. That's another thing I know I've discussed in another class, but I can't recall which one. More often than not, books that have LGBTQ main characters are not written by LGBTQ community authors. And, it's not like it's a requirement that just because someone is LGBTQ that they HAVE to stick to this subject.
DeleteSo this article was pretty interesting. To be honest, it wasn't long, and it still could have been shortened. Great points, but could have been said in half the pages. Anyway, I liked it.
ReplyDeleteI thought Fredal made his argument well. His article was well researched and clearly laid out. He showed both sides to the argument of bullshit, where certain arguments fell short and then explained why, and he was clear about what he think should and should not be implemented in the classroom regarding bullshit.
Fredal analyzes the theory of bullshit, based off of philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s book On Bullshit. Fredal first claims that “the study of bullshit should occupy an important place alongside rhetoric - both are concerned with the politics of semiotic interaction, and with the frameworks within which that interaction will be produced, interpreted, and judged” (243). He goes on to claim that if we understand rhetoric, we will be able to analyze bullshit. Fredal first analyzes the speaker. He clarifies that bullshiting is not lying, but simply tailoring your product to the audience. There is a line however that a speaker might cross - when the does speaker lose track of their own bullshit? The next element in the bullshit is the text itself and to what situation it is responding. And finally, the last element is the audience. Is the audience biased? Do they believe the speaker? Or the text? These three elements are known as the Bullshitter, the Bullshit, and the Bullshittee. When it comes to the Bullshit, or text, Fredal contrasts two different theories on the meaning of language. One is that language is a “vehicle for conveying truth” (248) while other, like George Orwell think it’s a vehicle for conveying meaning. The second theory explains why so many scholars can be bullshitters - through obscurity. As for the audience, or Bullshittee’s, the fault for the bullshit can lie on them. It is up to the audience whether or not to believe a speaker or text, and their willingness to accept without question gives rise to the presence of bullshit. Essentially, we should be asking “What exactly do you mean?” more often and only accept truth and common sense. Fredal concludes his argument by saying that bullshit is essentially the antithesis of what we should be teaching in the classroom. In order to avoid bullshit however, we must first be able to recognize it first. This theory challenges the fake it till you make it idea, because, according to Fredal, there is a line between bullshitting and persuasive discourse.
I think this article responds to a current subject. The idea that a lot of what we as students hear and read is bullshit is an interesting idea and something to be taken seriously. The section dedicated to audience I found to be particularly important because that is the position we have at the moment, and for those of us studying to be teachers, we could very well turn into the bullshitter one day and we have to decide if that is at all beneficial to our students. It is clear that Fredal is not a fan of bullshit in the classroom, but he is a fan of using it for comparative study with rhetoric. He believes if we know what bullshit and rhetoric both look like, we will more easily be able to distinguish between the two.
His claim: the study of bullshit should occupy an important place alongside rhetoric - both are concerned with the politics of semiotic interaction, and with the frameworks within which that interaction will be produced, interpreted, and judged (243). Understanding of rhetoric will help with the analysis of bullshit.
It's interesting that we both read articles responding to Frankfurt's essay. Mine analyzed the definition and place of bullshit, whereas yours seemed to challenge its very existence in the classroom. (Something I appreciate). I especially love that the concept of "fake it til you make it" is rejected as the sole means of learning rhetoric.
DeleteI'm curious, do you agree with Fredal? You mention the importance of audience consideration in a classroom setting, but you didn't take a stand on whether you think bullshit in academic settings is a necessary ingredient to teaching rhetoric.
I'd like to know because I've really struggled with this class, and if I had known at the onset the degree of bullshit to expect in academic papers and, as my article explained, the differences between how academics view bullshit versus the 'regular person', I think I would have performed much better.
Thoughts? (I'm asking everyone)
Man, Can I just say I wish I had read your article as opposed to the one I picked? It sounds intriguing as well as fake. As I was reading your response I couldn't help but think "Am I getting Bullshitted right now? Where's Ashton?" Because I get the feeling that is exactly what the article wanted you to think. It also made me think of (as Laredo pointed out) 'fake it til you make it' which seems to be all bullshit in my opinion.
DeleteYes, I do think it is easy to catch bullshit, in student writings. In my opinion, bullshit is mostly used by those who have little to say about a new topic. So, instead of working as a craftsman/woman, they pad their text with extra, non-committal words that add little or nothing to the text at hand. Bullshit is easily tracked, especially by those professors who are experts in their fields. They can spot it a million miles away. So, in order that bullshit is limited, we have to educate those who are serious cereal bullshitters. We need evidence behind what we say. Many of us are not experts and are not expected to be. Bullshit does not add color or life to an argument. Instead, it just defeats the purpose of the whole thing. If we can just use stronger words instead of padding, our text will become more truthful and alive. It will be more persuasive and will move an audience to a greater liking of the argument. We need to be discreet, yet direct in our choosing of rhetoric. Its use is not to be taken lightly. We must read, study, and produce texts that are relevant and stay on a topic without bullshit. However, bullshit as the article said can be beneficial so we have a model to teach what good writing is and what it isn’t. The detection of bullshit demonstrates a lack of time and introspection a text needs in the process of its creation.
Delete@Laredo: I don't like the idea of bullshit in the classroom, simply because I don't think anyone benefits. The author can skate by without meaning or defending what they're saying, and the audience can learn little if anything. I think the sad part is that at some point bullshit is expected from us. We've all had professors who expect us to know exactly what to do, like how to write a 20 page research paper, without having trained us or taught us how to write one. It is in these situations I feel bullshit is expected of us. I still don't think it's right though.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Anne Rider: Haha, I wondered if I was getting bullshitted as I was reading all of these posts. I won't think about bullshit the same from here on out. I felt that way about the whole 'fake it til you make it' since we first read about it in class, so it was nice to finally have an article that articulated what I was thinking.
Delete@ablepupil: I think it's easy to catch bullshit to an extent. I know I have missed it before because I thought a professor or fellow student was so smart ans they knew their stuff so well and blah blah blah, when in actuality they were bullshitting me from the start.
DeleteOh, how I wish I had read the following article before I wrote the first paper for this class! It would have helped me so much. It really explains how academic writing differs from mainstream writing, and the reasons for that.
ReplyDeleteThe title of the article is awesome: "A Kind Word For Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing" by Philip Eubanks and John D. Schaeffer. It's their response to and extension of Harry Frankfurt's 2005 essay entitled, "On Bullshit". It is essentially an examination of the concept of "academic bullshit" and its place in composition. It also uses the word 'bullshit' so many times it becomes mundane. I loved it.
The authors start with our perception of bullshit as being less offensive than an outright lie. They even declare that the social sciences and humanities are the most guilty of using bullshit, but that is because of the ethos we are creating when we write an academic paper for those fields. This led to the definition of bullshit, of which there are two: prototypical and nonprototypical.
Prototypical bullshit, the most common type, is when a person misrepresents the facts or himself in an effort to achieve his goal. A classic example of this is the salesman who over-exaggerates the benefits of a product in order to sound knowledgeable and make a sale. It should be noted that this type of bullshit is considered almost exclusively male, as the ethos portrayed is one of agression and masculinity. (An amusing example of this was made of Lyndon Johnson once referring to Richard Nixon as 'chicken shit' which is the wimpy, effeminate opposite of bullshit).
Nonprototypical bullshit is when the facts are not misrepresented, but the person presenting them is. This is the type of bullshit that academics are accused of. It springs from a desire to create an ethos of authority and knowledge, whether that is the case or not. The cycle of this type of bullshit is perpetuated in academic circles in two ways: first, by professors instructing their students to establish a tone of authority and enter the conversation of experts. The students learn to address their audiences this way, then become professors and teach their students the same thing. The second contributor to the cycle of academic bullshit is publishing: academics are encouraged to publish peer-reviewed articles that set them up as experts in the field. If successful, this enhances their reputation among their peers, which then leads to professional rewards such as tenure and grants.
It should be noted, however, that academics and non-academics see bullshit differently: to the average person, academic bullshit is full of jargon and unnecessarily complicated vocabulary words; it confuses rather than enlightens. To the academic, bullshit would be a poorly written article or misrepresentation of the facts.
The most helpful part of this article was the statement regarding the accepted conventions of academic writing. It is overwhelmingly acknowledged that passion is not a necessary attribute of academic papers, and that even if the writer disagrees with a fellow scholar, the utmost restraint and respect must be shown for that other person. In my first attempt at writing for this class, I was under the impression that the quality of writing and my earnestness regarding the subject were of the highest importance. I was wrong.
I have since discovered that the portrayal of my own authority while submitting to the experts is far more relevant in penning an academic paper. Had I known the attributes of academic writing and the acceptable, even expected, levels of bullshit involved, I would have approached the assignments much differently.
This article can be found in College Composition and Communication 59:3, from February 2008, pages 372-388.
Ha! I love the topic. This sounds very reminiscent of the "Engfish" article, though slightly varied in the way that it is argued and applied. This idea of creating false authority is something that has seriously been bothering me this semester -- if we're all just a bunch of fakes, who is actually an expert? Does this not reflect our society -- the fact that we are encouraged to pull authority out of thin air? Even, what gives us authority? Life experience or how many articles we've read?
DeleteI like that we both reviewed articles about bullshit. I also have to say that I agree, and I still haven't decided if it makes me sad that I am mostly paying for a higher education which is for the most part academic bullshit, or proud that I am being trained to one day sound as bullshit smart as my professor's. How do you feel about bullshit in an academic setting? Do you feel better now that you know you should, essentially, bullshit your papers or frustrated that the actual bulk of your papers, the part that you feel comes from how you feel, essentially means nothing without dressing it up for who's grading it?
Delete@ Amelie- Thank you! I thought I was the only one who questioned the notion of writing from a false persona. I realize I'm not an expert in the area of rhetoric, and it feels deceitful to pretend that I am.
Delete@FakeBlogID - I think a lot of what we learn in college is academic bullshit, which is very frustrating, because college should be preparing us for our careers in the real world. Being able to bullshit your way through a paper is all well and good, but in the end you have to be more knowledgeable and more authentic than that if you want to succeed. My authentic voice has always been present in my writing, and lately I feel as if I have to suppress my true feelings just to 'sound' more academic. (Which is not the way I believe it should be)
@Laredo, I feel the same way. I feel as if I have been bullshitting my way through most of my papers not putting in the bullshit I wanted to. Now my bullshit papers sound very bullshitty when I could have made the bullshit in them better.
DeleteHa ha ha ha!
DeleteWow! If I had known about all this bullshit, then I would have bullshitted my way through college the entire time. But now, I see how it is, by listening to those who say they have been bullshittin their way through are the ones who have been make good grades, while others who have been trying to fake it till the make, have essentially struggled to get the good grades. Damn! I feel cheated, by the system, I wonder who is at fault here? In other words, I should hate the system and not the players?
DeleteI found an article I feel very passionate about when it comes to students' writings. I chose to read, "Conversations with the Oriental Man: An Approach to the Imagination in Writing Class." The author, Richard Koch, has an imaginary conversation with a oriental man, which is his inner self, about what it takes to bring your inner self and creativity onto paper. We realized that he wanted to find a better approach for teaching his students to use their imagination in their writing. We all agree that when writing a paper, we are using our imagination to make our paper stand out and catch our audiences full attention. That is what makes the novels today acquire the high honors and awards. The approach Richard Koch was doing was not working. After he read a article by Kenneth L. Woodward about using hypnosis in finding better means for examining the past experiences of a person, he realized he needed to go down a different path. Richard says,
ReplyDelete"Their imaginations were certainly one of the richest properties of their minds; and whatever I could do to give them better access to the imagination would be entirely, and perhaps importantly, to their advantage."
He decided to try an experiment on the students to reach their imaginations. He had them close their eyes as he gave them a prompt of some sort. It could be anything like sitting on a blanket in the park on a sunny day; a person comes and hands them something not possible here in this world or day and age. He then asks them to open their eyes and start writing for about fifteen minutes. The results he got from his experiments were amazing to him, but he realized the process of writing was also important. He says, "these experiments represent either an entirely different "pre-writing" stage than the usual concept of planning out a paper or choosing a subject, or the experiments represent an entirely different approach to revision of essays than that of fixing technical weaknesses." He believes this process should be part of the writers experience inside the classrooms. To be able to reach that part of a students brain brings out their potential in developing a great piece of writing.
I really enjoyed this article because as teachers, we are too concerned with the product of the students' work rather than the process and helping the student develop their personal style of writing. I believe we first need to help the student realize their potential and teach them how to develop the ideas they can grow with and produce their paper. Yes we need to teach students how to write different types of paper, but we first need to teach them to recognize their own personal style. Students are all too often stressed with what they have to get done, being a five paragraph essay or bibliography for example, they don't dive into their imagination or writing style before they start to write.
I believe if we were to bring into the classroom a way to help the kids find their own writing style, they will be more enthused to write than they are now.
Work cited:
DeleteJournal of Advanced composition, vol. 2, Nos. 1-2 (double issue), 1981. Conversations with the oriental man:An Approach to the Imagination in Writing Class. April 2013
I really like this idea of imagination in writing. As I was reading this, I was thinking about my personal writing voice. I feel I have a very distinct voice when speaking in a social setting, and a very distinct voice in my writing, academic or otherwise, but those two voices are starkly different. My writing voice comes out as everything I wish my speaking voice would: Confident, witty, informed, always having an answer. I've had this "problem" since high school...and I believe it started when I became an avid user of the internet. I think a lot of people speak more confidently to strangers on the internet than they do one-on-one with people in the real life. Mine just evolved from there into a strong writing voice. I do think more students need to get in touch with that part of them. To me, there's nothing more refreshing than being able to read a work and KNOW who the author is without seeing their name on the book, just because their voice is that distinct.
DeleteI believe importing the imagination into writing is a stroke of genius. A writer has to be able to reach out, not only their immediate faculties, but also make contact with their imaginations. The ability to transcribe a series of imaginative events as they occur in their minds shows diversity and skill. Being able to “bottle” this “stuff” can lead to tremendous success in writing. I see it all the time. The imagination is what makes one writer different from the next. Originality springs from the imagination. This all important technique can lead to further success across and including the theoretical spectrum. Recording what is possible and not only fact helps us to gain a greater understanding of who we are as writers. Without imagination, writing is a blank slate that never gets filled with any sort of pleasurable activity. The imagination comes in various forms and is often infinite. I see the imagination at work in countless ways everyday. Much of music and popular culture revolves around imaginative works. People fight for their right to imagine without interference from proper authorities. Imagination is a way to express those deeply held hidden beliefs a writer acquires into metaphor and eventually successful writing. The introduction of imagination into the college classroom is paramount to our survival as writers. We cannot be stuck to one form in writing. I believe there has to be a balance between the formal and informal. Yet, it is only by the inclusion of both forms that we can provide a better final product for the ever eager inquiring audiences we seek to address.
DeleteI agree completely. Why do we write? We want to write because we have a passion to get our thoughts onto paper for others to read. We want to reach others through personal experiences. We want people to laugh, smile, cry, understand, etc..
DeleteAwesome topic -- I, too, really enjoy the idea of imagination in pre-writing. It's interesting what Misery Signals shared about noticing the influence of technology as a form of communication -- the fact that confidence and safety/support are needed to cultivated imagination is key, I think. In an online chat, or even something as simple as posting as Facebook status (which *is* writing, even though people scoff or overlook it!), writers are perhaps lacking that feeling of confidence given through human connection..or even lacking in the imagination that comes from our minds simply opening.
DeleteI don't mean to make a case against technology completely -- I deeply believe that we are always trying to find balance in everything, and when to use technology is one of those things.
This sounds like a cool article. I really like the idea of helping students find their own voice instead of being so wrapped up in the final product. One of the school's I did a field experience was like that and I thought it was great. Student's who would usually avoiding writing embraced it because they were given freedom to find their voice/thoughts, then once they were motivated and happy to write, it was easier to teach them the "proper" ways to write and revise.
DeleteThis is exactly what I'm talking about!!! I hate the fact that my work, my art is judged by the technical pidgeon-holding English purists of pedagogy. I understand that my final product must be clean and polished, especially to avoid any misconceptions or misdirections of the piece. But no one is learning how to actual apply the imagination. It's always a matter of critical grammar nazi hating on the wild of heart. Now, I know that it would be ridiculous to not grade these things, but I feel teachers must learn to cultivate this aspect of writing. But then again, is this "imagination" really something you can teach?
DeleteI love the concept of imaginary writing. Free-writing is a great way to allow the students to open up their mind to finds ideas that have been tucked and hidden away in their subconsciousness. There is a writer that lies dormant inside all of us and stories we all have stories that are waiting to be told. This is a great way to get those ideas out and onto the paper, and have fun making meaning out of the chaos and later, they can be proud of their works.
DeleteHoly cow I picked a long one! But I couldn't stop reading it because I found the topic so interesting! It was called "The Consequences of Integrating Faith into Academic Writing: Casuistic Stretching and Biblical Citation," by Jefferey Ringer. He began talking about his friend Austin who was struggling to write a paper about Secular Schools vs. Religious Schools. Ringer said that "Because Austin's audience did not share his faith, I knew he would need to find a means of persuasion outside of the evangelical Christian discourse he knew so well..." He begins to wonder/question "what happens to the faith-based identities of evangelicals like Austin when they attempt to convey deeply held beliefs to an audience that does not share them." He also quotes Donna LeCourt as saying that "academic discourse does influence the construction of self." I found it fascinating that he wanted to explore what happens to a person when they are forced to go outside of that belief. He poses a question about whether or not it is smart to impose Christian ideals as complete truth to an audience who may not believe the same thing, and whether that could be potentially harmful to the person.
ReplyDeleteRinger believes that the way that students identify with the world is shaped by how they are taught to write and think. This is in part because they must reshape their frame of reference to identify with a particular audience. It could change the individual when they begin to identify with the other perspective that they have introduced instead of just introducing it.
I found this article extemely interesting, albeit long (28 pages). I think that this is an important topic because so many people, especially students, go into a writing situation, such asd a class, and feel like they can discuss their religion with no holds barred. However, the problem comes when you realize that your audience most likely does not hold the same religious views as you do. Therefore, presenting your ideas as absolute truth might be realistic to you, but would immediately shut most other people down completely. This is definitely a useful conversation to have, because as we have discusses with other things that identify an author (gender, sexuality, etc.), your writing should be based on writing, not necessarily on who you are. Yes, I know that depending on the topic that you are writing about, it can be difficult to leave yourself out of the conversation. After all, everything we believe, feel, write, etc. is based on our pwn personal experiences. However, when that becomes the basis of what we are writing, we are automatically setting ourselves up for opposition, as shown in this article and Austin's experience.
Also, I want to mention that part of the problem was that Austin never admitted that he was changed by the rhetorical process. He said that he believes that it helped to strengthen his faith and his beliefs. However, because he was trying to cater to people who didn't share his beliefs, he ended up taking a Bible verse out of context. This actually creates plurallism in him - something that I am sure that he never wanted, and actually went against what he really wanted to do.
Works Cited: Ringer, Jeffrey M. "The Consequences of Integrating Faith into Academic Writing: Casuistic Stretching and Biblical Citation." College English. Vol. 75 No. 3. 270-297. 2013.
DeleteWhat a fascinating discussion! And boy has it been around for some time. I remember a student, when I was an undergraduate, that began "Bible-thumping" in a Introduction to Philosophy class. He was ridiculed for his faith and there was much disparaging against his person (I kept my opinions to myself, and I did feel bad for him, though he obviously brought it upon himself). But it later opened up conversations for me in other settings.
DeleteRhetorical situations relating to religion should be open in general classroom discussions because they allow for the discussion of belief--a think which all of us share. We have the opportunity not only to discuss religious belief but belief in general. Also, we can discuss how differing factors help the gestation of belief, obviously an interesting question of sociological relations.
Yet, there is good reason to think that those types of conversations should be left off the table. Once we begin to project someone's faith in terms of discourse, we are disregarding the ideas of faith and subjective relation to belief.
I don't know how, really, to address the problem, as I fear that those who bring up such topics generally hold them near and dear. But, for one of my classes, I did bring up the discussion. As a teacher, this was a mistake. I received many nasty emails from both students and parents (by the way, you're in college, let go of Mommy's and Daddy's hands). Yet, in class, for those who took part, the conversation was very interesting, as we were able to delve into the idea of integration of others' beliefs into personal belief and the formation of beliefs. Whether all beliefs originate, on some level, outside of the person or not, was discussed. Even more interestingly, it lead to discussions about false consciousness--a topic that divided the participating class: half thought it was real and half thought it was fake. There was one student, taking the cues I was giving, that made the claim it all must be false consciousness if everything we come to is external to us. (I did rebuff that claim, as it seems at some point belief can become very personal and original, but I will still very pleased with the answer he gave.)
Even though the topic was a mistake to introduce from my place, I was amazed to see the level of interest it sparked and the conversation that arose. I would never recommend its introduction coming from a teacher, but I do think it can offer an interesting insight into rhetoric and belief.
Thank you for such a fascinating presentation of and opinion on the subject, Sewrugby! Very interesting!
-P E
I'd like to know a bit more about Austin's article. Was he writing a persuasive piece in favor of religious schools? That's what it sounds like, because you mention that he cited a Bible verse, which he wouldn't necessarily do if it were a simple side-by-side comparison.
DeleteTo play devil's advocate here, I would argue that a person's faith cannot be severed from their identity simply because they are writing an academic paper. They may be able to step back a bit in consideration of their audience, which is both necessary and appropriate, but the idea that 'academic writing' means we are all passionless robots on a level playing field is absurd. Yet that is what we are taught. I think any time the topic of religion/spirituality is brought up in the classroom, there is potential for high emotions and disagreements, but if everyone is committed to an attitude of respect then it can be quite fruitful. Personally, when I am told to leave my beliefs at the door and not include them in my papers, arguments, or opinions, it is a fast and effective way to shut me down, because my beliefs can never be separated from who I am. Instead, I'll just be paranoid in voicing any opinion, for fear that my beliefs might shine through, which would automatically discount what I have to say.
This is an interesting topic, one that undoubtedly will be discussed for years to come. Maybe I'm just naive in thinking that there's room for everyone's beliefs at the table.
I agree...the writer should be able to step back in their conversation to involve the audience more. If you decide to write of your religion not taking in the fact that some of your audience will be turned off, your paper won't be totally successful. You should be able to reach all of your audience members in some way but also keeping your opinion. When you start of being defensive about a subject, you are going to shut out many people and not be respected.
DeleteAustin was trying to cater toward religious schools, because he had gone to Christian schools growing up. I think the hard part about what he tried to do is that he states that one of his goals was to be able to share his faith in a non-traditional way - through his writing. But when you make that a goal, you set yourself up for opposition. Also, the fact that he was introducing many ideas as absolute truth would be an automatic turnoff for many of his classmates who didn't necessarily believe the same things.
DeleteOk. So I feel no faith should ever be imposed on another, but at the same time, in philosophy, we like to take a pragmatic look at the world; meaning that one will share the lens of the truth holders logic, and try it on. I believe Aristotle said something along the lines of a man being able to take in an idea or truth to gain knowledge, but the man who can understand, without being changed by it, is the wise. Nonetheless everyone needs to think for themselves, even these automatons.
DeleteThis does sound like an interesting article you chose to study. I do know from experience how others can impose their beliefs onto others. This is one of the worst things that can happen in writing. We are allowed opinions but they are just that, just opinions. In order for them to be legitimate arguments, we must create them with researched evidence to back them up. We can’t just say things. If we do backup our worldly positions with evidence, then the audience will feel less “imposed” upon. They would feel just like some facts were being presented to them, and first and foremost, they must have the right to either “keep” them or “dispose” of them. Following a model such as this, an author can relay his or her persuasions to an audience, who can be either accepting or non-accepting. At any rate, yes, religious beliefs should be closely monitored when presented to a diverse audience. For sure, it is a relevant argument for composition courses of all kinds. The treatment of these subjects should be monitored as to not even accidently offend someone and the beliefs they hold.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's posted.
Delete-P E
This article rocks. TJ Geiger II confronts the taboo issues of religion, sexuality, and the free exercise of rhetoric in his article. He makes a great argument for the “free exercise of rhetoric” and believes that everyone is a part of this community (249).
ReplyDeleteIt is an understatement that these things are "often tricky subject[s] to deal with in the classroom" (17). They are undoubtedly complicated subjects. Who gets to speak? What do they get to speak about? Where is the line?
This is an extremely important conversation about the need for students to be able to reposition themselves as the readers, and take on an open minded way of thinking. The subjects of religion and sexuality are highly sensitive and will continue to have conflicting conversations. This being said, Geiger believes there shouldn’t even be a line when we are talking about the free exercise of rhetoric; it is just that - free. Everyone gets to speak about everything; whether we agree with it or not. All of these conversations are important to explore; when we find things we agree with, we discover more about ourselves, and when we find things we don’t agree with, we learn even more about ourselves.
But Geiger sees a problem with the existing discourse; these topics only surface when there is conflict. He argues for a discourse community that promotes renegotiation, unpredictability, and personal experience. He believes that the initial confusion about certain topics is ultimately a good thing when we are utilizing our free exercise of rhetoric. In order to foster this confusion and conversation within ourselves, we must allow these discussions to occur in a free, open minded community.
He continues about how religion and sexuality contribute massively to our personal beliefs, thought processes, and our overall life experiences. So, why are these things be avoided in the rhetoric community? Teachers need to be the ones to initiate comfortability in the classroom and really “believe in diversity” so their students can take part in freely exercising their rhetoric (251). We should strive to be open minded to “the highly contested constructs of spirituality and sexuality resisting cultural codification, maintaining the unpredictable and rich valence of possibilities” (Smart 19). If we close off any territory in order to remain in a comfortable bubble where religion and sexuality aren’t discussed, we will be doing our students a major injustice. These things are vital to who we are, who we will become, and ultimately the experiences we have our lives. We must initiate writing assignments that challenge our students’ thinking so they can come to know more about themselves and their peers. Religion and sexuality are “important sponsors of literacy” that we cannot afford to dismiss. We are never just “teaching writing”; we are “enabling ethical world-making” (264).
Geiger suggests multiple, creative ways to initiate these types of conversations with his students and become the ultimate advocator of diversity in the classroom. We must be an activist for change and promote the flourishing of unpredictability and uncertainty in our classrooms (266).
If you haven’t read this article, I highly recommend it. It is refreshingly open minded, proactive, and encouraging.
Work Cited
Geiger, TJ II. Unpredictable Encounters: Religious Discourse, sexuality, and the Free Exercise of Rhetoric. College English.
I wrote on this article, too. I definitely agree that it is refreshingly open minded and encouraging. I didn't mention in my post, but I did love where he said that these things are such an active part of our personal lives, so why shouldn't they come out in our writing? And they absolutely SHOULD. As a straight LGBT ally myself, I just fear that assigning (forcing) students to write about these issues will cause judgment to be unleashed, cliques to be formed, and feelings to get hurt. As future educators, we will need to think about these issues outside of the classroom. Say we have our students write a paper on their stance on LGBT rights. Then, say, we have our students workshop one-another's papers. Optimistically, let's say all the students respectfully read one-another's papers and provide critique merely on the "correctness" rather than the content. Then, the lunch bell rings, these kids disburse to hang out with their respective friends, talk among themselves, and one group finds out how hateful so-and-so is, and the other group finds out that so-and-so might be gay, and then the bullying starts, and the fights start. As much as we would like to push our students to be more open minded, I'm not sure the composition classroom is the place for it. If the kids want to write about these things in a creative writing classroom, let them at it. But to require students to write about a controversial subject is really pushing it. This isn't a debate class. I'm so entirely conflicted on this because I would hope it would push students to be more open to others' views, but realistically, it really likely wouldn't.
DeleteYeah, that is refreshing! I think the idea that we must teach students to be tolerant by means of keeping quiet about their own beliefs is pretty audacious. Doesn't it make sense that we encourage our students to express themselves, and to respect others who may have different beliefs?
DeleteSuch a paradox: "Students, I want you to be creative, express yourself, tell us how you really feel, as long as you don't talk about something that everybody can be comfortable with."
I agree that there should be no line. Our beliefs and practices define us, and if we ask students to talk about something else they won't be interested.
Ya I suppose it would be difficult to create that kind of environment. While there may be potential negative outcomes, there could also be really awesome ones. Let's say these kids write on the topic of LGBT rights and read each others papers. This type of exercise could promote understanding, empathy and open mindedness. I think we just need to be willing to take the chance. I believe that if a hate group or bully is formed against the LGBT community, it is typically done so out of ignorance. Maybe instead of forcing this prompt on them, we could make it an option. Give the students 3 choices of topics relating to similar themes and see where it goes from there. Even if they choose to avoid these kinds of topics in a composition classroom, at some point in their life they will be forced to have an opinion. I think it would be awesome if students confronted the uncomfortably, asked questions in confusion, and worked their way outside their comfort zone. I know that the world isn't perfect and that this could potentially cause problems, but what do we really have to lose?
DeleteI like this concept, but I think there are just too many variables to say it should be implemented universally. Forcing students to write about religion in some smaller communities in Kansas where creationism is the curriculum, and evolution is off-limits, can force kids into a no-win scenario. Or an LGBT paper in Mississippi. Even the age and maturity would be radically dependent just because so many kids don't know their feelings on many of these issues and are still just parroting what their parents say (whether they're aware of it or not).
DeleteI would be most interested to see how this article could be related to a debate class, because when I was in those classes we had to write the same papers that the article discusses. And as Misery mentioned, the issues didn't just stay in the classroom. Often times the hostility would extend to lunch, or friendships would completely dissolve over learning how someone felt about a touchy issue. But is being confronted with that important for a writing class? Is this better discussed in philosophy, or psychology? I don't know. As TruckerCreep brings up the paradox, I just have a hard time accepting that this would make for better writers, or even better thinkers, unless the classroom really were more geared to a debate style setup. Then again, I haven't read the full article, so I could be making overly broad assumptions.
Yes, what could be more sensitive and more attractive than issues of religion and sexuality? Is there a link between the two? Is it love? We are all beings searching for answers to life’s most troubling questions. These are the questions that sometimes perhaps cannot be answered purely from a surface perspective. Perhaps, they can only be found through faith. Faith is what can connect some of us to ponder our existence. It can either be organized or unorganized. Faith can press us toward this self or worldly discovery. I believe we all have to believe in something. I don’t care what it is, as long as you believe it to be true and that it makes your life more fulfilling. Sexuality is also a touchy issue. There are varying degrees of sensitivity to this subject, yet it is so fundamental to our existence. We are all sexual beings. We all come together to fulfill our basic need for human touch and attachment. Maintaining intimate relationships helps guide us toward becoming the complex individuals that we strive to be as adults. These lasting connections are what many call love. Are we all capable of love? I’m sure there are thousands upon thousands of questions we all have about love. These are all complicated questions to the existence we all seek as we go about our daily lives looking for the people that can best help us attain our goals.
DeleteI do agree with the whole open-mindedness of students and being able to write about whatever they want to, but there has to be restrictions on it. We can't just start up a conversation about LGBTQ or religion in our middle or high school classes. It is not fair to the students that we start such a touchy subject to some students who may be made fun of or attacked for. That is why there are clubs and groups for those who aren't as frightened about these subjects to go and talk and hang out. Yes talking about these subjects bring up a lot to write about for these students, but there are also many other subjects the students and dive into to bring up personal issue's to talk about. I don't feel it it our place as teacher's to bring sexual and religious content into the classroom of middle, high, and freshmen classes. There are other ways to get to the students.
DeleteI totally understand where you guys are coming from. I'm just not sure if I agree. As educators, I believe our motive is to teach the whole student; not just academically but socially, etc. These issues are real life and they are important to discuss. I guess I'm just not crazy about having restrictions on what is "okay" to talk about in a composition class and what isn't. I think we would be selling ourselves and our students short if we decided there were lines like this.
DeleteI could be overstating this for everyone but personally I wasn't saying there should be any restrictions I was saying it shouldn't be forced as a topic. There's a vast difference in someone choosing a topic and writing a paper on their own than a teacher saying "Okay, today we're writing about transvestites." If it comes out fluidly from the writer's experience then I say bring on any topic that's out there, but just trying to force the issues is where I disagree.
DeleteI'm glad to know people are reading my article and having productive discussions (with divergent perspectives) about the issues it raises. Cheers!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI AM SO HIGHLY EMOTIONAL BECAUSE I AM ONLINE!! Well, that was the gist of Angela Laflen's article "Okay, My Rant is Over": The Language of Emotion in Computer Mediated-Communication. This article delves into the world of online discussion boards in classrooms and the varying emotions and levels that come out. Laflen points to the fact that online discussions or more emotionally charged (positive and negative) than discussions that are face-to-face. The study done was online discussions that involved the Presidential Elections of 2008. Talk about already having an emotional platform that is hundreds of miles high. However, using politics is a great way to evaluate how others (and specifically students) can express, control, and maturely handle their emotions.
ReplyDeleteLaflen continues the discussion by how these online responses were evaluated on an emotional level (negative aspects as well as positive aspects) by using what she termed as "Evaluation devices" (includes emotive adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and nouns) and "Quantity devices" (includes linguistic expression of measure, duration, amount, frequency, or order). In other words, it was the use of their actual writing from an academic standpoint and the use of their writing from a more emotional standpoint. I thought of it as "professional" vs "personal" way of writing. Even though the responses to the elections was all personal, their writing had variances on the type of writing that was presented. When I say "professional", the writing done by the student had more of a sense of academic mindset, while still expressing their emotions, being sure not to offend anyone who might not agree. When I say "personal", the writing doesn't take on as much of an academic style writing, but has the writer's whole personality injected into their response. They may or may not have others in mind while writing their responses.
Laflen continues discussing how the use of online discussions can be (and should be) used in the classroom to enhance the understanding of issues, but needs to be approached with caution so as not to offend other students. She lays out certain guidelines and things students should understand upon entering these online discussions.
I agree and disagree with Laflen on this. I agree that we should all be conscience of others and the fact that each person holds a different opinion from ourselves, however, there is no way to avoid offending SOMEONE in expressing our own opinions. As people with our own thoughts, our own brains, our own experiences, we will never make everyone happy, or convince everyone that we are "right".
These online discussions are important because it allows EVERYONE to have a voice, and each voice is different. I know that, as a writer, blogger, reviewer, I won't agree with everyone, someone might offend me, and I might offend someone else. From mature people, that is never the intention to offend someone by expressing their opinions and emotions, and I feel that is something everyone needs to understand who enters into a discussion that will most likely have emotions running high.
This is an important discussion to have and an important outlet to implement within, not just classrooms, but the world because technology is only becoming more and more dominating in our everyday lives. Online discussions are happening everyday whether it be through status updates on facebook, tweets on twitter, blog posts, comments in response to any of these things, etc. Even text messages can be considered this type of discussion since it is not being done face-to-face. It is important to understand the level of emotions that happen through these various technological devices and the best way to approach getting your opinion out in a way that will be influential, yet trying our hardest to not be hurtful.
Work Cited
DeleteLaflen, Angela. '"Okay My Rant is Over": The Language of Emotion in Computer-Mediated Communication'. Computers and Composition 29.4 (2012): 296-308
It is so completely true. I think it's pretty well known that people have an ability to speak with much more confidence online than face-to-face. We have that barrier that protects us. Personally, I am much more willing to speak my mind online. My facebook wall is littered with my opinions on subjects that I would only be comfortable speaking about face-to-face with close personal friends of mine. I would never feel comfortable shouting out some of my opinions to a bunch of strangers strictly because I am terrified of serious confrontation. I can handle someone saying, "I disagree with you, and here's why..." but if someone called me an idiot, or started shouting, I'd likely break down and cry.
DeleteI'm TERRIBLY offended by this blog! Ha ha just kidding. This was a very fascinating blog, well done!
DeleteAlthough I understand why it is we feel more comfortable stating our opinions online, why don't we feel just as threatened by the possibility of being ridiculed on Web space? This is a point Misery Signals touched on, and I think it's worth thinking about more. Do we not really care about what our marginal friends and acquaintances might think when we post opinionated statements (some that may potential offend)? Or is it more that we find such online space personal enough to do so? Is Facebook meant to be an open journal?
Obviously, we post online to be heard. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be "News Feeds" and other like modes that so readily connect us to others and allow others to connect with us (if I had to guess these modes were created in a response to the demand for more immediate interaction between people). A question that now strikes me, why do we so desperately wish to be heard? I don't want this to become negative, so I'll leave it at that. If you have any thoughts, please, comment!
-P E
I feel like we need to be teaching our students this idea of personal writing online. Like you were saying about people are more confident online then they are in person which makes them post things they otherwise would not. If we were to teach out student that even online we are still dealing with real people and that what we post still has effects. With online identity being as big as it is we need to teach students that there will still be consequences to what is being posted online.
DeleteFascinating discussion, and very relevant in today's world. First of all, I think the freedom we have in online discussions is refreshing. In a society obsessed with political correctness, it's important to note that, in life, you WILL be offended, and you WILL offend others. And guess what? That's okay! It's the trademark of having billions of unique identities smashed together on an increasingly small planet. The takeaway is to just get over it. Life is tough.
DeleteThat being said, it is also fascinating how some online bloggers/Facebookers, etc. take this concept to the extreme. All sense of manners and respect are thrown out the window, and what is left is an asshole with a keyboard.(Funny how all sense of grammar and spelling are also thrown out the window, as if we weren't judging people by that as well).
In a perfect world, I think our face to face conversations would more closely resemble our online conversations. There will always be more 'offensive' statements made online than in person, but if we use our online presence to better articulate our thoughts rather than a carte blanche for verbal diarrhea, more relevant discussions will be produced.
Yes we should bring this online discussion idea into the classrooms. If we did it anonymously compared to using our names, we would get different discussion entirely. When our identities are hidden, we are able to be ourselves without any restrictions. What people think of us is so important to us all, we tend to hold back our true feelings. Although this can bring about some loss of control on emotions and things could be said that are not meant.
DeleteThis is interesting to me because so many people talk about how technology blocks emotion. Some say that's why it's harder to text for instant message, because you can't understand the tone/emotion that the other person is trying to convey. My personal experiences would have to agree that face to face is more emotional, but I can see the other side too - when you're protected by a screen and a fake name (if used) then you can have a stronger and more outspoken voice. I truly wonder what the future will hold as far as classroom discussions via technology, and if it will help or hurt the students in the long run.
DeleteI love how you started this article/review thing. It really sucked me in and made me want to keep reading! Also, I feel very enlightened as to the communication of emotion. Fascinating stuff.
DeleteIt really is crazy how different identities are created through the internet. I think people feel safe behind a computer screen, which causes a million problems. I believe this is going to have a huge impact on our future students. We really must keep this in mind.
DeleteThis discussion is right on target, especially with the concept of maturity based writing and understanding. We are not writing for those who are immature. We are writing for those who share our ability to comprehend and make rational conclusions based on that evidence. People that are quick to be offended must withhold judgment until they have pondered the subject with maturity. If they undertake such contemplation and do not act out of anger or retaliation, he/she has the chance to respond in a civil manner. This is the wonderful nature of a conversation and/or agreement; they go both ways. Personal attacks are different. They are meant to hurt people. They don’t offer us the chance to respond civilly. There is a difference between a personal attack and reading a perhaps offensive text with maturity. So, yes there has to be a line that should not be crossed, where maturity can still be understood without brazen personal attacks.
DeleteI love all of your insight. And to respond to Sir Peter Elbow, I think we totally do feel like we can and will be ridiculed online (even more so, probably, than in person), but to quote one of my favorite artists we are "hidden behind the keys of a message board" (Macklemore). If someone were to bully and be mean and shut me down, no one would be able to see me burst into tears while I stare at the computer screen. Unfortunately, a lot of this topic leads into the environment of cyber bullying (which makes me sad). As to Laredo, Jane Doe, and Myfakeblogidentity, I think the classroom would be a wonderful place to explore this whole concept to create (hopefully) more mature, civilized, compassionate, literate over the internet, people. That understanding there is a real person sending and receiving these messages and not just an emoticon, there might be some interesting changes.
DeleteIn regards to the face-to-face discussion and writing discussion, personally, I can get my thoughts and ideas out there more efficiently through my writing. My step-dad requests certain topics for me to talk (or more accurately, rant) about on my blog and he reads it everyday! He says he gets to know me better this way since we don't talk everyday and we don't necessarily talks about the things I write about. I learned that recently and I thought that was interesting. (total tangent there. Sorry)
I have two words to say about the article I read, “Meow, Meow!” Translated, as Users and Owners. Oh, never mind, my intellectual self. One would have to know some legal jargon to understand where I’m coming from. Especially later, when I use words like, Copyright. And Intellectual Property Rights. Are you still with me?
ReplyDeleteThe article, “Intellectual Property in College English—and English Studies,” by DÃ nielle Nicole DeVoss, she opens the discussion by referring to Samuel Weingarten’s article, “The Use of Phonograph Recordings in Teaching Shakespeare.” In Weingarten’s article, he emphasized how important it is for Shakespeare plays to be watched on the stage with live actors and are not meant to be read with books. He proclaimed how it’s difficult for students to produce mental images of how the plays are supposed to be acted by the characters in the books compared to the way the lines are actually spoken by the actors on stage. To solve this problem, Weingarten suggested that his students use Phonograph records in his classroom.
Devoss pointed out how Weingarten’s article, only opened up the critical discussion of “Creative imagination and contemporary media adaption,” (Devoss 535). But he failed to discuss the topic of, “Copyright, ownership, or control (related, for instance, to purchase, performance, reproduction, or distribution) of the media objects—in this case, phonographic recordings,” (Devoss 535). Ooh wee, she’s one tough cookie, almost as tough as my ninja-jump. She agrees Weingarten on the parts about copyright protection and is a new and emerging area.
Devoss article is starting to make sense. She addressed the importance of introducing Intellectual Property in the field of composition. “This is our wheelhouse: texts, textuality, authorship, authoring, creation, and composing. As writing changes shape, so must the ways in which we situate ourselves to those changes and to protecting the modes and means by which writing happens, by which texts are approached and analyzed, and by which texts circulate,” (Devoss 544). She restates her point by chastising professors of CE for not familiarizing themselves with the 1976 US Copyright Law and IP issues.
Her final point, is to present her findings in CE from the years 1939 – present, and to determine whether or not the terms (IP) and Copyright was being used during those years and was being dealt with adequately. She found things like ghost writing, students buying essays, using photographs, multimedia copying, and corporate authorship of using (IP) images in digital space like “Mickey Mouse.
Gee-whiz, that’s a lot to handle. Here’s why I think all this information is useful. It all boils down to who is considered the “user” and who is the “owner” of such works. The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, determines who is the owner and what works users can copyright.
The more I learn about copyright clearance and all this technical stuff, the more I realize how Devoss and Diana George are on point with introducing digital course material in CE. Especially, since George sought to introduce visual literacy and visual arguments inside her classroom since access the Internet technology is popular. Students today, live and thrive in the digital age outside the classroom. With the help of the CE professors they can create new knowledge and bring digital electronics inside the classroom such as online learning or live class sessions to help their students learn in a different types of environment.
So that’s the future. I guess we better learn how to make electronic Intellectual Property and Copyright work.
Works Cited
DeVoss, DÃ nielle Nicole. “Intellectual Property in College English—and English Studies. ” College English, 5. 5, (2013): 534-47. Print
Weingarten, Samuel. “The Use of Phonograph Recordings in Teaching Shakespeare.” College English1.1 (1939): 45–61. Print.
Hi YAH! (Karate Chop!) Isn't it intriguing that the question of ownership has become so important? (Refer to mine for another example of the discussion! Haha :]) I've wondered (to myself) for some time if the ideas of "user" and "owner" should be so rigid in academic settings. Now, really, I can't decry to current copyright structures because I have pieces copyrighted, and I would be hesitant to let others infringe upon the work I've done, allowing them to appropriate it as their own (or something inane like that). (I've also wondered if it isn't snobbery that keeps us from bridging the gap: "This is mine, and I'm so great, so you can't begin considering the topic until homage is paid." Shh, Peter, do you want to get yourself ostracized?)
DeleteI don't know what the answer is, but I'm very glad that this kitten has brought it the attention of its classmates. I wish it were easy to resolve, like everyone agreeing, simultaneously, not to plagiarize others works and to be just in citation, thus allowing copyright rules to loosen, but that is so fantastical you have to laugh. ("ha ha"...that's a sad laugh.) At some point, the issue returns to money--its axis. It seems likely that because we are so caught up in money, lawsuits will always be quick to follow unlawful usage. Again, it would be great if people simply agreed to not talking advantage of others, but that's a utopian ideal that will likely never come about.
I also agree that as Web based media migrates into the classrooms around the nation, we will be presenting a serious challenge to the laws. At best, I guess we can say to teachers and students, "Hesitate when introducing copyrighted ideas into the classroom, and be careful when using them." It seems sad, to me, that this is only real advice I can provide: "Don't be stupid." The real resolution seems to be a "societal reconciliation" of some kind.
I tried.
-P E
O’yes, our good friend the Copyright. This is an integral part of what we do when we in any discipline in a college atmosphere. We have to back up inferences or opinions based on works that already have been copyrighted. People get very angry when their work is plagiarized and the hard work that they have put into it is stolen, from someone who simply is either too ignorant to know that he/she is stealing, or simply does not care. To get published is an author’s ultimate goal. It is the biggest compliment an especially new author can receive. They speak in their own voice to the audience and want to represent themselves correctly, so as not to be confused with another author. Originality is key to Copyright. We have to differentiate ourselves from others. We all have uniqueness and are able to come up with original ideas and if they are not original, as we know, we must cite the material which we used. In this way, it gives credit to both the writer and the copyright, who we have chosen to present similar viewpoints on the same topic, in order to emphasize their representation.
DeleteBack-at-ya! Mr. Peter Elbow. Ownership is very important these days, especially with all the streaming of music, film, TV, online books, and artwork. I learned that getting published was a big deal when one of my professors finally got published after all the years of writing. Some of my professors showed us movies in the classroom. I noticed that they had used the "fair-use" term properly. Either the film department purchased the DVD or they had purchased the DVD for us to watch and to write our papers on. If they would have used a copy of the original DVD then it have been considered an infringement of copyright.
Delete@ablepupil--getting permission is crucial. Yes, writers deserves ownership of their works and to receive proper credit. That is why professors encourage their students to avoid plagiarism. In two of my online classes our first assignment was to not only read about plagiarism but write about why it is important to give authors their proper credit when we use their ideas.
DeleteThat is great you have some works that are copyrighted. I have yet to complete some great stories I have written, and I look forward in copywriting them and becoming a published author one day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReview: Jessica Reyman's "User Data on the Social Web…"
ReplyDeleteBy: PeterElbow—forreal!
Lovely Dr. Reyman, in her article "User Data on the Social Web: Authorship, Agency, and Appropriation," addresses a very pressing issue, one that strikes me as a minor atrocity: data-mining and the favoring of user-input as "data". (Data! What a poor way to regard individual interaction with the virtual communities of Web!) Dr. Reyman is quick to set up the situation and note issues that relate to it, beginning with a general picture of the Web as a great potential for new branches of communication opening, furthering the access of knowledge and the betterment of our modern societies (2). This portrayal of the land is soon followed by the present situation of user-input and data-mining: as individuals add posts to Facebook, run searches on Google, or chase down a website on Tumblr, they provide these companies, and companies in similar markets, information "…about a wide range of their [the individual's] online and offline activities…ultimately, giving up control and ownership of their contributions…" (2). We are presented with a situation where our interests and inquiries are exploited for corporations to access and use for marketing purposes, the incentive behind Reyman's forwarding an argument for recognizing users as producers of content, not "data", on the web and improving general awareness that our thoughts and inspirations are being treated as bits of information--particles of selves split into 0's and 1's (3,4). The dispute, as Reyman so graciously approaches it, regards whether or not "user-created information" is simply "data"; if so, the originators of much online "information" may not have as much claim to what they have written--an idea's authorship deprived of its author! because the tech companies view the interaction a user has with a website as a compilation of "facts" and that the providers of the Web medium are entitled to that information as proprietors. (11-14) So, to be quicker to the point, user-content is considered "data" to companies, and "data" is something these companies are allotted to have. By the end of her paper, Dr. Reyman puts forth ways to deal with data-mining, focusing on how to salvage user-authorship. The key is individual awareness of the information people give up on the social Web, being careful not to give up too much (18). She also thinks that companies mining "data" (content!) should be transparent about what they mine, what they look for, and how they are distributing that information, and that they should acknowledge that "data" (content!) is collaboratively created (18). It is an article well pieced together and awfully informative (I shiver when thinking about posting my thoughts of Facebook and how they may be manipulated for some corporate end).
If you haven't noticed my sentiment towards "data-mining" to this point, you may not know what to do with what I have to say now. To begin, I agree with much of what Reyman has to say, and I am thankful to have been so enlightened about the subject--rhetorical situations of the Web are not my strongest point of familiarity. She is right to question the nature of data-mining. The conversation is of course very important because it shows us what can be lost in the changing conversation that technology invites. If we merely stand by, companies, as Reyman shows, can haggle individuality right out of the equation, leaving our words as husks to be toted along for some sale elsewhere (or furs for trade). She also depicts the importance of recognizing new technological mediums for engaging in the commerce of communication, assuring that the Web can be a place for knowledge growth.
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteYet, there is more that I want to add, particularly to the discussion of content and authorship, as Dr. Reyman only touches on the qualities of the topics--what validates authorship and makes content ours. These are the points central to the contentions made, and I'm a little disappointed Dr. Reyman didn't explore their details and implications further. What I will go on to say regards what Dr. Reyman "missed".
First of all, I find it hard to believe that circumstance alone is what is constitutive of creation, and I distain the idea that mediation provides propriety in the claim for ownership--both of which are necessary for content being attributed as "data". Content goes beyond web pages because the content is developed before in our reflections. Creation itself is a subjective matter. When we post on Facebook, we are dealing with our emotional states, dreams and relationships; the Web is just a medium for expression. Besides, I'm not talking to Facebook, I'm talking to my friends, my colleagues and my peers. The content regards them. As I write in a Word document, I am not owed my discussion to Microsoft; though I am grateful for word processing. (I still miss the chatter of type-writers, but I don't miss the agony of typos to be expunged, the monotony of retyping rough drafts, the coffee stains, and all of that glory.) I write because I have content to divulge, thoughts to form, life to chase. If a tech company wants to peddle that information off as "data" and something that is theirs, meaning is lost to the dollar bill and we are usurped of an essence that defines us. Content is ours to explore and live, and once that is made cheap so are our lives.
As far as authorship goes, an idea takes root in the thought of an individual. It wells out of the individual and spills over into the medium. When I blog on Wordpress, I am fulfilling creation, the creative process. And when I am ripped off, when my meaning becomes information to be sold, I'm being robbed of the words I stitch together, I'm robbed of my voice! To be a bit more logical, if I am the one who puts forth an idea, even if it is cahoots with the thoughts of others--as all ideas are, then I must be the author, and I must be the proprietor to the discussion that is mine (be it small in the broader conversation). Therefore, I must have some right to the ideas I confer, I must have some stake in the ownership.
(Part 3)
ReplyDeleteIt also strikes me as a bit unsavory that tech companies are so willing to compile information about the goings on of individuals yet exclude the very content of what they say. Words, though they convey information, reveal so much more than "data" informs us. How do we register Love in terms of "data"? If I am studying up on love poetry, should I want to be informed about the nearest erotica shop? Where the nearest store that sells massage oil and Marvin Gaye CDs is? What Paris Hilton thinks of love? Is that all Love is for us? And should I have it sold to cheap galleries of meaning like that? It would be a failure to find Love only in the application of "data"! Content is what differentiates us from computers! Content is what is at the core of being human, as our individualized expression is comprised of content. So when tech companies say, "What you write on Our Site is bits of information," they fail to recognize what is at the center of communication and life--and it's not simply information, "data".
I must applaud Dr. Reyman on her piece, I am all the more informed! I also appreciate the rousing to fight against the obsoleting of Web users in the reality they help to shape (it is we who tell tech companies what to be and what to do in the future!). She provided good arguments and ideas for how we can begin to regain the ground of ownership stolen by tech companies (yes, stolen; most of us are entirely too unaware of data-mining, and there isn't much of an effort on the tech side to inform us—not like they would wish to inform us…). These are the first steps, and we should encourage further questioning of authorship and ownership in new mediums, always considering what new technology means for expression and the individual.
P.S. I would also like to thank Dr. Rivas for the opportunity to join in on his class discussion; what a bright group of individuals you have in your class, sir! (I apologize for giving more of a response than a review, but I felt the article did not go far enough.) Keep on writing, you future proprietors of content--don't let your unique voices become "data"!
Work Cited
Reyman, Jessica. “User Data on the Social Web: Authorship, Agency, and Appropriation.” College English. 75.5 (2013): 513-533. Web. April 20, 2013.
Don't fear how long this article is! I promise it isn't a tough read!...
DeleteI've realized, when reading through the interesting blogs of the class, that I'm not much of a blogger. Sorry about the boring article--that really is what it is!
DeleteGreat review, Peter!
DeleteI find this topic to be complex -- just as you presented it to be. Never before has our world seen information shared like it is being shared now, and regulation or de-regulation can't even keep up with how quickly the information is being produced and shared. In regards to to this idea of how websites look at our writing as "data", I love what you shared. I agree that there is no way to define love in terms of data. I feel that this article and review bring more questions than answers, and that is a success! Will our world turn into a "by the numbers" culture? Will technology continue to permeate and blur the lines of intellectual property versus data? (yes.) How will what we're teaching our students today carry over into what they will be expected to do with this new data-obsessed world?
Thanks for the comment, Amelie! It is quite intriguing and inspiring to have a movie character respond to my piece! Thanks! (I wasn't sure you celebs were into rhetoric; I can't wait to tell the faculty!)
DeleteA line of questioning should never end, I'm glad you point that out. Honestly, I'm just saddened by the general apathy that seems to subsist when we reduce everything to markets and economics. Yes, Facebook is offering me a service, but my life is something more than the data they collect and are informed by in my posts. I'm not sure how we change this, but then again change is an inevitability--we just can't see the outcome.
By the way, tell Guillaume Laurant to get some more stuff out here! I thoroughly enjoyed "Amelie," but I don't think I've seen anything else he's done since. For shame!
-P E
Cool response, very informative. Data mining is a scary thing, and it makes me uneasy to think of my file of info floating around out there.
DeleteWhat follows is a response to Michael Bunn's article “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the Classroom.”
ReplyDeleteBunn's article is an important contribution to the field of composition theory because he explores the relationship between reading and writing, and how each is taught. I have not seen much other research on this topic so I am glad to know that someone is writing about it. Bunn believes that there is a connection between reading and writing assignments in school (obviously) and that this connection should be made more apparent. This is a good observation. This article is important because it points out the disconnect between the teaching of writing and reading, and it is useful because it offers practical steps about how to teach these disciplines together effectively.
Bunn argues that students are less inclined to put effort into reading assignments because they do not understand the usefulness and connectedness of writing and reading. They feel that writing assignments will help them in life by becoming better writers, but they already consider themselves competent readers so they do not see how those assignments will help them. Bunn also argues that while teachers understand the reading/writing connection, they do not adequately teach it to their students.
I remember reading The Hobbit when I was in 6th grade and trying to emulate Tolkien’s writing style (albeit horribly) by creating my own fantasy novel. I worked so hard on that novel and wasted away for hours writing and crafting a fantasy tale of my own. That drive to write never followed through to my school work, however. When writing for classes I would either not even do my assignments or hand them in half-assed because I was being graded on non-creative things that had no interest to me.
Bunn does offer some advice about how to teach writing towards the end of the article. One is awareness of the connection between writing and reading, as well as discussing the reading/writing connection with your students, and using good examples of writing for the reading assignments. The most important piece of advice, in my opinion, is that reading and writing tasks should be assigned simultaneously to stress their connectedness. I like this because if I had been assigned The Hobbit to read and then been assigned a hobbit style writing project at the same time, I would have EXCELLED at it. I would have put in so much effort, but this was never an option so that effort was never put in.
Like I said before, I think this is a useful and important article because it emphasizes the connection between reading and writing which is, according to Bunn, all too often overlooked.
Does he give specific examples of reading and writing that should be assigned simultaneously? I'm just wondering because while I like the idea of The Hobbit activity you mentioned, from a class-wide basis, I think that would have very little appeal. I know far too many people that don't enjoy the book, and beyond that, would never have the drive to write in that style. I guess I'm just saying that I like the concept, because I agree there is a painful gap between the two disciplines in school, but with individual preferences being so varied, does he establish a more universal way of implementing this, or do you have some ideas yourself? Tolkien is one of my all time favorite authors, but there is a large segment of the population that abhors the fantasy genre, and if anything this would come across as a painful assignment to those who are interested in a different style of writing. Maybe varied books for varied writers? I'm just trying to think what would have helped me as a writer (both then and now) in regard to assignments. I like that the article opens this topic though because as you mentioned, I think the link is too often ignored.
DeleteThere is something quite magical about the relationship of a writer and what they read! The bond is strong and opens us up to a new exploration of what we are writing about, even if the topics are unrelated.
DeleteI once had a creative writing class transcribe stories in their own words, trying to replicate metaphors and symbols with examples that would be similar but their own, and I was amazed to see how my student's understanding of the story deepened and their appreciation of the work bloomed! I'm very glad to here, Mr. Backer, that you had a similar experience when emulating Tolkien (well, could have had)!
I think, though, that such application is best suited for creative writing; yet, I do think one comes to better understand readings when they make the effort to "sound" like the author when responding to them--I know it was the case for me as an undergraduate student. Getting in the head, per se, of the author you're reading is assuredly a good way of coming to understand them better. (No, Mr. Bartholomae, I'm not joining the Dark Side, yet. Authority is different than originality--you would know! Haha, just joshin' ya, old friend!)
I very much appreciate Michael Bunn's contribution here, as he is exploring an important topic; once we simply severe the threads between writing and reading, the possibility for better understandings of how to approach both subjects is harmed. Here's how I view it (and you can trust me, I'm a PhD ;]), academic approaches to literature fail to recognize the creative element of most literature--we try to find formulas for theme, which usurps the realness of the theme. An author, though not always, is approaching their work recognizing the conventions, topics and tropes that define the period, and what is creative is how they deal with this. It is not simply creative to use fanciful words if they are only fancy because a writer thinks fancy words are delightful. They must be thinking of words as precise tools, scalpels, to dissect the normative content. Once they do this, a person can work originally. (This is only a consideration; I think people can write creatively without worrying about what others have said.) I know it's not very Expressivist of me, but freedom doesn't come until you realize you're bound to societal conventions of expression. Twisting them is new. (Egad! I'm sounding more like a New Rhetorician with each sentence...I'd better stop while I'm ahead. :])
In all, I enjoyed this Blog, and now I very much wish to meet Mr. Bunn in more than passing! Thank you, Mr. Backer!
-P E
Not that you are assuredly a Mister... I'm sorry if I was so hasty in my judgment, Ms. Backer--if you happen to be a Miss or Misses.
DeleteThis article, What we Say When We Don’t Talk about Creative Writing, was just the kind of article I was waiting to read all semester. I had a lot of trouble this semester finding my focus, through my course study focus, writing, within the incessant discussions of pedagogy and critical analysis of pedagogy. I suppose I was a bit ignorant when came to these matters, so I blew them off. But in hindsight I see how these are all parts of a greater whole. See, the Article describes the growing disciplines and areas of focus in the English Department and how they work separately. Gerald Graff begins by illuminating that the fields of study are separated due to old and even antiquated modes of thought. That the truth behind the matter is that no one wants to discuss where the classroom is today and what these courses mold to students to be. Now this is understandable, and I mean this in the most polite way, because if it’s not broken, then don’t fix it. But the real truth is that a lot of people do not understand the point of college. It is not to be ushered into this new era of learning, but to find your own inner capacity to figure out problems and solve them within your own ability. College is a platform to instill these abilities and shape our pursuits. Graff believes that the English Department needs to formulate a new class that brings critical analysis and creative writing back into the classroom. Honestly, I think Graff must not have taken any classes for this study, because I’m certain I’ve taken these classes before. But nonetheless, I do not agree with Graff. I feel that theses types of classes are the same classes that have always been taken. I do not believe this is a new idea by any means. All in all, I believe that the student of critical analysis and creative writing must perform both actions, for a more holistic understanding of the craft and art of writing. My only problem is I’m no critic and I don’t care to be, aspire to be, or wish to spend my life talking about other people and their work.
ReplyDeleteWhat We Say When We Don't Talk about Creative Writing
Gerald Graff
College English
Vol. 71, No. 3, Special Topic: Creative Writing in the Twenty-First Century (Jan., 2009), pp. 271-279
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472324
I'm curious about how he came to these findings. Did he do a case study, or like some of our other articles, did he observe classrooms? It sounds a lot like what we've talked about in other sessions where this discourse has been going on nearly since the English Department was initially founded. Did you get the impression he was saying something along the lines that we need to focus on process rather than product (as many of our other articles have) or did he just write the entire article to point out a limited view of classes that need to be invented that already exist in almost every university?
DeleteI agree and disagree with you on some level. I completely agree that we have definitely taken the critical analysis writing classes, and classes that taught us how to write academic papers, writing within the discourse, however, there isn't much out there as far as creative writing. The one and only creative writing class that I have ever been required to take was The Art & Craft of Writing. But that was before I was a writing major. Once I changed to that major, my creative writing requirements opened up tremendously, but would I have taken these courses if I wasn't required to? Maybe not. I know most people won't, so why not require just one or two more creative writing classes? or classes that aren't specifically writing classes, but the papers are geared towards that creative aspect as opposed to scholarly?
DeleteThere will never be an easy fix to any sort of school or classroom problem, but I do agree that everyone should have a well rounded idea of composition, the pieces and parts, to better understand the who, the what, the where, and the why behind our everyday writing.
Yeah, in the end I wasn't that impressed with the article. But I do enjoy the writing program at metro. I just wish my classes were more geared in being a writer, rather than a critic. Just my opinion though.
DeleteYes, the point of college is to create a bonding between ourselves and the disciplines we study. I do see college, though, as a place to engage and challenge ourselves, and to seek encouragement where need be, so that we can become more fully aware of our own intellectual prowess and how we can best fit into an ever changing and difficult world. Dealing with new people, new ideas, is all part of a good education. Striving to meet goals such as deadlines and assignment requirements help prepare us for the world after college. Whatever discipline or profession we enter, the knowledge and practice of composition can surely help us succeed in any environment we choose to be in.
Delete@ Center of the Sun. That would be awesome if classes were geared toward being a better writer, instead they seemed to be geared toward writing for a particular genre. The critic part, seems to be a necessary part, as this helps the writer become a better writer. When critiquing classmates pieces they are learning, "what not to do" to help improve their own writing skills.
DeleteI read an article by Peter Moe called “Composition: Ecocompostition, Aristotle, and the First-Year Writing Course.” In this article he talked about how he noticed people are unable to write. He discusses how he use to work for a clerk for the courthouse, mostly in domestic violence issue, he said that many times cases were dismissed because the people were not able to write out a proper statement for the courts. He discussed how this was absurd because writing was supposed to be something that everyone learned how to do and the one course that is required for every college. He then realized that it was not that people were not being taught how to write but they were not being taught how to write to the proper audience. In his article he wanted to show that in teaching writing you need to teach discourse communities right away and that we need to be teaching it through ecocomposition theory.
ReplyDeleteMoe then goes on to talk a lot about how students are not being taught to write towards a specific audience, so when they begin to write papers they are feeling lost all the time. He says that as first year students they need to be taught how to address people based off what argument they have; this way they are able to “distance themselves in order to gain a variety of perspectives on that topic.” He feels like many students are not able to do this and are not being taught to do this, so we need to implicate this in our first year composition courses. He then goes on to talk about Aristotle because he believes that he was the first ecocompositionist. That Aristotle viewed communication as “an ecological act between the rhetor, audience, and the issues at hand.” Moe talks about how we teach the ideas of ethos, pathos, and logos but we also need to be teaching this idea of ecocomposition in order allow students to full understand the ways of writing. His overall argument is that through ecocomposition theory students will be able to see that they have the ability to influence forces as writers if they know the proper way to address the issues at hand.
I found this article very interesting because it really fit in with the discussion we have been having a lot in our class; this idea that we are not teaching first year students how to really write even though all students are required to talk the class. It really addresses the issues about how to get into the conversation as writers through discourse communities. I know we talked a lot about this in class where we, as writers, need to be able to fit into the conversation others are having about the topic we want to write about. In Moe’s examples about the court cases, if these people were properly trained in how to get into the correct community then their cases most likely would have not been dismissed. Writing in an essential part to life whether or not we see it that way, so our teachers need to be showing how to write for the people they want to address. His idea about how we approach the teaching or writing to first year students is very useful in order to help everyone become better writers in any topic. I know once I start to talk this course and learned more about discourse communities and the way the writing “world” works I really started to change my approach on writing. I wished I learned a lot of this my freshmen year because it would have helped a lot while I was writing my college papers. And that is exactly what Moe is trying to convince us to do. Add these more difficult teaching to first year course in order to prepare these students for the rest of college and the rest of life because we will always need to write in order to fit in with some sort of situation.
Work Cited
DeleteMoe, Peter Wayne. “Composition: Ecocomposition, Aristotle, and the First-Year Writing Course.” Composition Forum 24: Fall 2011.
This article sounds really interesting and when I get the chance I may go look it up. But there were specific things I wanted to bring up in response to your review. The first is that I love the authors and your arguments that we need to be teaching about Discourse Communities much earlier. I think I was lucky because in High School I was involved in Journalism and we learned right away what it meant to be writing for a specific audience. But most people really aren't exposed to this and should be. I was a little confused by the explanation for ecocomposition theory. It made some sense, but I'm still a little fuzzy on it. Could you re-explain it? I'm very intriqued by the concept. And finally, just as somebody who is interested in job opportunities and measures of success, I think this article is really relevant because one of the greatest measures of success is whether or not somebody can be a social chameleon. Like whether or not they can change their dress, speech and other attitides to be appropriate in different social situations. Whether or not someone can write for a specific audience seems tied to this idea.
DeleteWow! What an interesting and powerful article. Learning to write for a particular community/audience sounds a lot more interesting than just telling the students they need to complete a particular writing assignment. Ecocompostion sounds like it could help students focus their writing for a more powerful impact in reaching their intended audience.
DeleteSo the ecocompostion is a little fuzzy still. When Moe was discussing it in his article he talked a lot about how professors see it as this "green" idea of teaching, but he wants to change it to this "new" idea of teaching where we are teaching students to see how they fit into the world and how to relate to the world through learning about these discourse communities. He feel like this would allow them to be more successful in life situations. Since they are being taught through this new lens of teaching.
DeleteI do agree that there needs to be more emphasis on writing for a particular audience. It is not stressed enough in class as to how to write to a particular audience, and when writing to a different audience how our voice changes to cater that certain audience.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOn one had the professors shout, "Write like us." And on the other hand, "You should already know how to write like us. Why don't you get it already? Week after week, we teach you what, we want you bloody fools to know, and you still don't get it? they tell us.
DeleteI supposed this stuff is a lot like rocket science: sink or swim or drown. Sad, but true.
Yes, we all have an audience waiting to hear what we have to say. This is why many of us are in college in the first place. With few exceptions, writers are gifted enough to go through life without college, but if we are in college, then we are probably in it for a reason. Aristotle’s ecocomposition then, is a unique position on our subject of study. If we write poems, essays, or for any other reason conceivable, there is probably an audience out there for it. To tailor it to your audience is a skill that takes practice. It is rare that a person masters persuasion without much formal training. Thanks to Aristotle and arguments/essay’s like these we can begin to grow as writers and hold our findings throughout the rest of our lives.
DeleteThanks for the clarification. It makes much more sense now!
DeleteWonderful article! Well presented, concise, interesting!
DeleteI won't hold back my question though: What did Moe intend by using "Eco-"? I understand that he was refereing to Aristotle, but what did he make of "Ecological composition"? Are we to go out into nature and bask, following our excursion up with a paper? Maybe it is just that we've come to associate anything Eco- with nature, but what environment was he getting at?
I worry that talking about ecological composition borders on "trendiness" and Moe was just using "ecocomposition" to saturate his work. What did he mean! Sorry to get so riled up, but I think eco- is being unduly saturated in our modern societies, using it to gain attention without contending what we mean. Thanks for any insight you may have, I'm Here!
-P E
My review of: "Incendiary discourse: reconsidering flaming, authority, and democratic subjectivity in computer-mediated communication "
ReplyDeleteBy Timothy Oleksiak
I thought an article about flaming might find itself fairly appropriate among this anonymous blog trial we are engaged in. For those who do not typically write online flaming is summarized fairly quickly as the act of ranting at another poster to the point of unproductivity. That of course is putting it mildly as often it descends further to personal attacks and outright hostility. The first third of the article spends time defining flaming mainly because it is such a subjective thing. One person may feel attacked by a post while another can find it completely mundane. But where the article gets interesting is by equating this flaming discourse to the classroom setting.
The main idea behind the article is that currently when flaming occurs in an online discussion run by a teacher, or within a classroom, that there are very few ways a teacher can deal with it. The first way is by assuming the teacher authority and ‘protecting’ whomever they see as the victim of the attack. This is by far the most prevalent way teachers address this issue but Oleksiak asserts that this becomes problematic if the teacher either doesn’t understand the banter and immediately sees it as a threat, or more often, imposes their own values onto what is right and wrong in the discussion. While an otherwise timid student may come up with a remarkable reply to a flame that completely neutralizes the scenario, this is typically precluded by the teacher assuming the student cannot handle it and stepping in to protect them. The author goes on to say that in doing this the teacher completely removes any democratic notions from the discussion and turns it into a semi-dictatorship.
The second way Oleksiak says teachers often handle this issue is an activity in absurdity where they try to trivialize any flamer before they have a chance to cause a problem. As we often joked in our class about what would happen if one of us anonymously decided to troll this blog, this was actually similar to the technique of negating the problem before it even happens. By making a joke of people who troll, the act itself is quantified as juvenile and inappropriate. One of the teachers the author quotes had all his students write out their flames beforehand and encouraged them to “really let go” in an effort to show how ridiculous most of them were. By establishing this all before the discussion was started, the rules for what would be appropriate online were manufactured mainly by the students by a peer-pressure type of set up that the author considers much more democratic.
(cont’d review)
ReplyDeleteIn either event Oleksiak still contends that this is not enough, and is imposing too much of a teacher/student hierarchy. His claim is that there should be an understanding at the introductory level of college that we are all now adults, and that along with that we will inevitably have to fend for ourselves. There won’t always be a teacher to come to our aid and save us from the cyber-bullies, and he attests that the first year of college is when we need to come to terms with this idea. He says for a truly democratic setting to take place online that it is the students who have to mandate what a flame really is, and whether or not it needs to be addressed. His precursor to this is that respect in the classroom must be maintained first. I would contend that this doesn’t adequately apply to courses that are online only and that if he truly believes the only truly democratic online discussions can take place with no teacher stepping in that this statement should apply across the board. It certainly is a valid point, and it seemed odd near the end of the article for him to hedge his point a bit at the last moment. The overall contention is that as long as teachers place themselves between flamers, either by confronting what they see as inappropriate and trying to mitigate it, or by attempting to diffuse it without actually letting it play out, then teachers will always be the authority and no type of democratic discourse can occur.
I found this article important mainly because it addresses a form of discourse that will be increasingly more common, and brought up a litany of discussion topics for the online discourse community. What is the right age to have teachers stop regulating talks? Are students mature enough to handle flame wars? Will the majority of discussions even have flames at all? Some of the topics in this blog already have had some very strong opinions, and have contained some very touchy issues, but is it being handled well so far because we engendered a community of respect already in the classroom, or would all of us have been mature enough to handle these discussion topics regardless of whether we ever met in person? While there are no answers to be found in this article, it certainly provides the fodder for a rich discussion in the community.
As far as the article being useful, I think any article that can draw our attention to a subject that is commonly ignored, or that there is no established way to address, is ultimately helpful. The basis for the article that every online discussion is going to have flaming, and eventually lead down this path of flame wars seems like a weak foundation, but at the same time it makes a good argument for the idea that maybe we are a bit too soft when it comes with letting people experience the real world. One of the speakers at a seminar I recently attended said something along the lines of “While some of these students may never pick up another book after High School, every single one of them will have to deal with people, and that is what we have to teach them.” I look forward to seeing how this anonymous blog plays out in this regard because whether or not we agree with what is being said, at the end of the day, we still have to deal with each other.
Work Cited: Oleksiak, Timothy. "Incendiary discourse: reconsidering flaming, authority, and democratic subjectivity in computer-mediated communication." Composition Studies 40.2 (2012): 34+. Academic OneFile. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
(I had trouble posting this over the weekend. Hopefully it works better today.)
This article sounds interesting and really fits with what we are doing in class. I like the idea of the teacher stepping in and monitoring what it being said between these students. I feel like in many of my online classes the teacher never posted anything and sometimes people would start getting into heated debates. There is a line that teachers need to be watching for in order to show how we should interact with one another. Like I commented on Anne Rider's Blog we need to be able to teach student how to interact with each other online as well as in the classroom.
DeleteI may have represented the author's view in this poorly as his overall contention is that teachers should NEVER step into the discussion, and basically let the students duke it out, as that's what they would have to do in the real world. Personally I would like to see him do some studies, or find some studies, and see how this would actually play out before asserting that it's what all freshman classes should do. As you mentioned, and along the lines of my own personal thinking, is that if the teacher never steps in then eventually it will just break down. If there is no teacher involvement then any web venue over the course of time will basically become a giant chat room. For that matter what would even be the role of the teacher if they never stepped in? I liked the idea of the article, but honestly out of many of the choices in this blog, it has too weak a foundation to really recommend reading it. I'm hoping that is why so few people have commented on it, and not because of my exceedingly dry analysis.
DeleteI liked your review, though I must say that i think alot of the time flaming is simply done out of a juvenile desire for fun and thrill.
DeleteI completely agree, which is why I was ultimately disappointed in this article. It came across as someone who has been flamed a lot in their life, and so now looks at every online venue as a place where everyone is going to just constantly have to deal with flame wars. Yes, if this were a political class, or a philosophy class, maybe the potential would be higher, but still I just don't see every single discussion having to worry about this issue. There have been some fairly heated topics in this blog already and so far nothing has descended to the point of a flame war.
DeleteI am curious though whether there is something to be said for our already established relationships in the classroom, with a preexisting level of respect that contributes to this, or if it would be the same if we had started this exercise on day one.