These are
the steps to participate in this final assignment:
1.Select a recent article
from these journals, College Composition and Communication, College
English, Composition
Studies, Computers and
Composition, JAC: A
Journal of Composition Theory.
2. Post your article review by replying to this entry
by November 22nd, at 5:00 pm. 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.
3. After you've posted your review, reply to at least three
of your colleagues' posts (such as asking question/clarification, etc.) by Tuesday, Nov 26th, at 11:59 pm.
4. Continue the conversation on your or others' entry up
until Sunday, Dec 1st, by 11:49 pm.
Hello class,
ReplyDeleteFor my analysis, I did an article off of Computers and Composition titled, "Moving Images: Slideshows, Rhetoric, and Representation" by Paul Muhlhauser and Kelly Bradbury. I chose this article not only because it was shorter (let's be honest, some of our choices are ridiculously long-winded) but because it is relevant to one of our recent discussions on the rhetoric behind visuals in writing and argumentation. It also references the article I presented on by Selfe, which was kind of cool.
The article begins by introducing the idea of images themselves. Muhlhauser and Bradbury write, "We aren’t trying to lie with visual imagery. We aren’t trying not to tell the truth. We’re just looking for ways to showcase more of our identity than the static images in our wallets or on our walls, shelves, or refrigerators let us. We don’t want THE picture of ourselves—the one a guest or an audience focuses on—to always portray us as static, simplistic, or one-dimensional."
They provide an example of two images displaying two different people, and then point out the fundamental flaw of the "static image." It does not tell everything about the person in the image. For example, the man riding the skateboard. They point out that you can tell he likes skating, and that he is a Top Gun fan (due to his shirt) but what you don't see, is that shortly after the photo was taken, he crashes and it leads to his subsequent choice to move on to bike riding instead, or the fact that he no longer identifies with Top Gun anymore.
The essay the moves on to compare and contrast the differences between static images, and moving images. They discuss how moving images can be more appealing and make a piece feel more fresh then a static image, in addition to providing a wider spectrum of the ideas, identity portrayal, or argument within the moving images.
Their final slide goes in to comparing the differences of visual imagery, how this effects students, and their theories from their research. I am not going in to as much detail as probably necessary, however that is to encourage you to check out the article. The real beauty of this article is the way they present it. It is in a very visual format, incorporating a clicker on the left to move through the pages of the paper, as well as attaching slideshows for each of their picture arguments. It is worth the look just to skim through it with how they arrange it all.
Ultimately I feel they present a good argument on incorporating visuals in writing, and it makes a powerful statement in such a short amount of pages, which as we have seen some authors spend 25 pages trying to capture.
To start up a discussion, what is your opinion of their presentation, and do you feel visuals like these help an argument, or only distract from it? Fair warning, I love to play Devil's Advocate, so don't be surprised if I present a counter argument to whatever opinion you may take.
Here is the link:
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/moving_images/#1
Morgan, the article seems fascinating. Visual elements are incredibly powerful tools that have in academic writing been used starkly--especially in the rhetoric and composition field.How's the old saying go?
DeleteThough, incorporating images, or videos would be a costly affair for most journals. Do the authors address this?
This does sound like an interesting article!
DeleteNot to sound wishy-washy, but honesty I don't believe there is an exact answer to your question. There are many times when visuals can greatly assist in furthering an argument. After all, "Actions [or in this case, visuals] speak louder than words." Just as you mentioned, even the article you are presenting here allowed for a much greater argument with much fewer words - simply by adding visuals. With that being said however, I think it is also definitely possible for visuals to detract from a piece of writing. In fact, I think that this is likely the case if the author does not understand the reason for adding such visuals. Personally, I think that a good rule of thumb is not to include anything in a piece of writing, visual or text, that an author cannot justify its reason for being there.
Your turn "Devil's Advocate."
I especially enjoyed the moving stick figures. However, I did not like the argument that moving images show more of the whole story, because like images they can only show part of it. There is always something happening before, something happening after and neither pictures nor 'moving pictures' show the whole picture one just shows a little more than the other.
DeleteThis sounds pretty crazy, to be honest. When I was reading your review and you mentioned slides and a selfe, I thought I was mistaken as to what you were talking about. But as I read on, it cleared up. With the way that you explained how the article was presented, there was a passion and level of respect within your voice. Your voice in this review, also, sounded much like it did when we were in class and there were little hints of connection with the reader based on experiences that we had potentially shared together. Even if this review was posted in another Advanced Comp class with the same reading assignments, it would be able to withstand the discussion. Although I did not review the article myself, it does allow me to reconsider how I present material in the future. Was there any sound to the article/slideshow? I will agree with 'charlesmississippi' that moving images show more because art has been depicting multiple story lines for hundreds of years. What do you think that moving images take away from solid images?
DeleteThe article does seem interesting. Though I do agree with charles. A moving image can be just as difficult to establish identity as a single image. Did the skateboarder have trouble moving from skateboard to bike? Did he find that he enjoyed it more than skateboarding or was the switch more for his safety than he liked it? With either one, it's difficult to show the full identity of a person.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDesiree, I don't believe that the standard of authorial justification should be used as a premise for the inclusion of any part of composition. Anyone can offer justification.
DeleteRather, the effective use of multi-modal composition lies in its ability to allow audience members to make a more meaningful analysis of a text.
@ Jake
DeleteGreat comment. I suppose that is actually more what I meant; however, I do believe that the two go hand in hand. Often, if an audience does not find "meaning" in composition (visual or otherwise), it has to do with the fact that the author is unclear in his/her purpose- not simply weather or not it is justifiable by the author.
That was an interesting article but to me I think still images, thanks to technology, are more of a distraction. Before I even read the dude on the skateboard crashed, that was all I could think about. It would seem thanks to fail videos and gif's, the sole purpose of skateboarding is to crash. That was all i could think about. When I see a still image, it generates so many other thoughts in my mind, then what is going on in the picture. Just like with Instagram. I used to be only photos, but that wasnt enough. People wanted more, their stories could not be told in image form only, because people are so interested in what comes next, thus they added videos to Instagram. I wish the article would have dealt more with that, but maybe thats my personal oppinion, still images only generate ideas
DeleteAlright, after long being distracted on break (and partially not wanting to think anything remotely related to school) I will attempt to reply to what I can in these final hours. I apologize that many of you will not likely see it until class tomorrow.
Delete@Jake: The authors do not address the issue involved in the cost of adding pictures or videos to journals or any composition piece for that matter, however, I believe it is due to the nature of their piece which explains the shift in technology and its ability to aid the current direction composition is headed. Where it may have been costly before, many of today's compositions are posted online, and linking a picture or a video is often done at little to no cost to the author (depending on the possibility of usage rights and if the author has to host the files, but with youtube that is unlikely). The authors of this piece are trying to make an argument for a change in direction, that truly only works when paired with the internet medium.
@Desiree: I knew that comment of Devil's Advocate would come back to bite me. Furthermore it will be difficult to argue against you with a half-and-half answer. Still, here goes: I would have to agree with Jake's position that justification has little to do with the effectiveness of a visual within a piece. I could slap an image of philosoraptor in here as if I felt it fit my argument well, but just because I justify it to myself does not mean anyone would agree with my justification.
[img]http://cdnl.complex.com/mp/620/400/90/0/bb/1/ffffff/91c8cb0227802b8c937fcc51648856a8/images_/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/TECH/2012/06/the-100-greatest-internet-memes-of-all-time/philosoraptor_258949.jpg[/img]
I feel it is in more of the author's intent and how well the author communicates that intent. If I wanted to make a powerful statement about the cost of war, would it be better for me to show a table of statistics of monetary spending, or a military graveyard? It all depends on the piece, and the objective I would be trying to accomplish. I could use either image in the piece with a similar justification, but that does not mean the interpretation from the audience would be the same. I agree you are correct in that the author needs to understand how to use the images he is attaching to his piece, however, I feel justification is a moot point among other considerations such as the intent the author is trying to convey, and how well he conveys it with his chosen piece.
Well the above [img] was supposed to be philosoraptor. Oh well, copy and paste if you really want to see the picture.
Delete@charlesmississippi: While it is true that there is always something happening before or after an image, allow me to counter your idea that images can not show the entire story.
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/162/a/a/raising_the_flag_by_powback-d5xlwhq.png (I tried to find a better image but this one was the best for my point without getting complicated)
In this image are four G.I. raising the American Flag at Iwo Jima. While yes, events happened before and after this moment, this is the only moment that matters. This image tells the entire story. (Albeit there is room for alternative interpretations, in the correct piece here is my example) The rubble at their feet, and the position of the men suggest a hardship (the battle) that had to be overcome to get to that point. The raising of the flag is declarative of their victory. The fact that there is only four men, and not a large group, and to add to it you can not see any smiling faces, suggests that it was a costly victory. Were an author to use this, he does not need a video showing the entire battle of Iwo Jima, or the entirety of WWII for that matter, he need only show this image to illustrate a point of perseverance, determination, or perhaps a combination in an idealistic willpower. What happened before these four soldiers raised the flag is irrelevant if you can not tell it from the image. You know there was a battle. You know they were victorious. How they got there could have happened any number of ways and does not change the meaning of this picture. This picture IS the story. Were it a movie image, they could add the despair or the struggle within the soldiers' faces as they raise the flag, and it would only increase the emotion contained within the story. Add a somber piano piece and you might get a few readers to cry. The point is, while not always, sometimes an image can tell the entire story, it just depends on the image and how it is used.
@Anonymous (the first): I feel that moving images can take away interpretation from a "solid image." It would depend on the author's motive, but if he wanted less room for reader interpretation, he could use a moving image to instill specific emotions. As presented in my previous argument, using a moving image might evoke stronger feelings in the reader, however it may also direct them towards a single idea, leaving less room for them to interpret it. A "solid image" however, leads a wide array of possibilities depending on its implementation in the piece. Unless the author specifically goes into detail about the picture, the reader is likely to come up with their own idea of why the author used it. Hopefully my explanation makes sense.
Delete@Lite2090: As I mentioned previously, it really depends on how the image is presented to you. These ideas of if the skateboarder had difficulty moving to the bike, or if he found that he enjoyed it more than the skateboard, could be irrelevant. To the picture itself, those questions may come up, but if the author had not told you about his crash, or that he moved to the bike, would you have even considered those questions? While it is very likely that when you see the picture of the skateboarder, you might immediately think of an incoming crash (as Anonymous 2 pointed out), it is unlikely you would think about him switching to a bicycle, or anything beyond the crash for that matter. The authors purpose may have been to get you to consider the proper use of images, as well as just what a reader may interpret from them when provided with varying information.
@Anonymous 2: So would you say then that the author's idea that a picture can not tell the whole story may not always be correct? For you to see the skateboarding and automatically associate him with a crash is just something for author's to consider when using images in their composition. As I started to mention in previous responses, the author needs to consider the use of images, and when using a still image especially, what kinds of thoughts the reader may have. While no one could plan for every interpretation, they must be prepared to expect the potentially random generation of ideas that come from images. Furthermore, is it not the purpose of using images (and even more so imagery in written word) to evoke ideas? While you may think it distracted you from the piece itself, it may have been the author's intention to get you thinking about all the connections images evoke, and therefore while you may not have been as focused on the author's words, you were focused on the author's use of images and were thus still accomplishing the author's intended purpose of his article. No?
I agree with the author in that a static picture may not be very effective in expressing the entirety of what the author is trying to articulate. However, I believe moving images have a fair chance, a lot of the time, of communicating everything an author intended. I did my article on the importance of film as an academic tool and one thing i took from that and something that is important to remember when discussing dynamic or moving images is that they are often accompanied by audio which can add substantially to the interpretation of an image and the authors intentions as a whole... this is something to consider when discussing moving images!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Interactivity and the Invisible: What Counts as Writing in the Age of Web 2.0, William I. Wolff discusses what the face of composition is in a Web 2.0 environment. Wolff argues that in the current internet age that writing is the act of making meaning, and that through the use of multiple Web 2.0 tools composition is more interactive for both reader and writer. Through a rigorous compilation of Web 2.0 sites Wolff reaches the conclusion that, because of the interactivity online that web composition is much more similar to the study of comics, games (like Zelda and Mario), and e-lit. Further, because Web 2.0 relies on computational language as an invisible composition, Wolff advocates for an increase of compositional study in the field of programming—at least to the extent of effective use of web tools.
ReplyDeleteThis article is especially relevant to modern writers, as composition is increasingly taking place online through tools like facebook, blogger, youtube, twitter, and thousands of other sites. If writing is to take place in a new format, writers must be aware of using that format to its fullest potential. The internet is, perhaps the next step in composition by field, and with it the possibility horizon is vast. As writers, and scholars it is imperative that we explore the possibilities of the novel tools which can convey and construe meaning—and that is ultimately only possible through trial-and-error.
The seemingly endless possibilities that the internet provides will inevitably change the way that content is written, shared, and owned. Through the use of interactive composition it is possible to provide a new depth to written works. Further, by navigating multi-modal texts readers and writers will become versed in thinking in terms of connection, rather than separation. Interactive composition is poised to create texts that are rich with cultural meaning, and connotations that span the entire globe.
First, brilliant use of popular media in your meme's, the over 9000 bit was priceless in addition to its effective illustration of your articles point. Did the article make popular cultural references similar to these? Also, did Wolff make any references to semiotic ideas such as the sign or the signifier in his article?
DeleteMatt, Thank you for the compliment sir--over 9,000 can be tricky to use well. Wolff did not use any pop culture references in the article--though it seems he had many in mind when speaking of the functionality of Web 2.0 in composing. He briefly touches on semiotics when he speaks of Zelda as a composed work, but not directly and doesn't take that element of his argument very far.
DeleteI will second Matt's compliment about your use of the internet meme sensation within your summary. Also, curses! I thought I could make it through one time browsing the internet without getting Rick Rolled!
DeleteWith your comment on the field of writing changing and morphing with this new push towards internet mediums, do you feel that the idea of a conventional author of books will soon die out? That less people will become famous for writing as more and more people are granted the ease of access that e-book publishing allows? I sometimes fear it could over saturate the field, and truly good writers may get swept away and lost within the flood of average writers self-publishing.
Call me afraid of change (I am, it's fine), but as an aspiring author, I often fear where my field is headed, and find myself wanting Prozac whenever I read someone's post on facebook, or read some blogs that thousands of people follow.
Afraid of Change, the internet is a substantial invention (to say the least) and the ramifications of its invention and development will take decades to fully understand. That being said, I believe that the question isn't about the conventional author becoming obsolete, but rather about the adaptation of intellectual property in general, when an abundance of written works are permanently available for adaptation, and incorporation into other work. Further, it seems that the market driven publishing enterprise is hardly a measure of quality control in this day and age.
DeleteI tend to agree with Jake about market driven publishing. Their main concern is whether the book will be able to make a profit, which doesn't necessarily mean it's author wrote it well. Not to me anyways. Also, Facebook, Twitter, and so on don't seem like as great an example of where writing is headed as the sites meant for displaying ones own composition. The greatest thing, perhaps, about the internet is that people can have more writers to interact and learn from, and also if online collaborative (or text collaborative role play) takes off it may help writers have new ways to improve through interactions with other writing rather than just their own. Somehow...I feel I've gotten off topic but this is what the summary made me think of in terms of the internet and writing.
DeleteI read an article from English Journal called Robo-Grading and Writing Instruction: Will the Truth Set Us Free?, and I have to say, I really enjoyed it. The author, Dave Perrin, is a high school teacher in Illinois, and he argues against the use of E-Rater and other algorithm based graders for student writing.
ReplyDeleteHe starts his argument by talking about a paper he received in high school. He had written a paper on Shakespeare, and his teacher had essentially commented that it was one of the most well-written papers that he had read, but it didn't really say anything. This opens up the argument that a paper can be well written without having any content.
This is Perrin's complaint with the electronic graders, or the robo-graders, as he calls them. The robo-graders algorithm is often argued as very effective, as long as the material isn't a creative writing piece. It grades students on things like sentence structure, length of words, sentences, and paragraphs, and conjunctive
adverbs as evidence of complexity of thought. The backers of this technology suggest that the robo-graders are reliable for 95% of all writing, excluding creative writing, and score the students just as a human grader would.
The technology is used for online courses at Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and many other massive open online courses already, and can grade 16,000 essays in twenty seconds. The proponents argue that giving students instant feedback on their writing turns it into a game, and students will want to resubmit until they get it right.
The problem with this technology is that the instruction for writing is missing. Along with the standardized movement, tests already drive what teachers do. Perrin argues that facts, logic, and truth will become dispensable in favor of teaching the mechanics of writing and neglecting critical thinking.It becomes a problem of standardization versus truth, as many people have written completely false essays and still received the highest marks.
It also challenges the idea of what good writing is, according to Perrin. He says that students gain their own ideas of what good writing is as they receive comments back for the things they write. Good writing is subjective, so they will receive mixed feedback and they can develop their own ideas on what they like and what is good for them. This process removes that, because as long as they are including conjunctive adverbs and 15 words per sentence, they are writing well. They end up writing for algorithms instead of for a diverse audience.
I thought this article was very interesting, and it's important because it also asks what good writing is. Are we writing to write mechanically well, with proper sentence structure and grammar, or is good writing the content that we write?
I also think its useful in bringing up the questions that we should be asking. Is this a beneficial thing for students to use? It may help with the technical aspects of writing, and the students will get a fast response. There is also an argument that they will write more if the feedback exists. Or should we always be teaching for content? Is the feedback useless if it isn't teaching students to also check for facts, truth, expression, and nuances?
First of all, from what you have summarized here I agree with the article as mechanics are certainly not all there is to writing. I wonder if the writer did any sort of research to back up his claims on the quality of the writing graded by the machine because he makes a good point but it would be more founded if he did.
DeleteI agree based on the summary. I can't help but wonder what else this E-grader has a negative effect on. I feel like it would vastly hinder a student's personal voice and also ability to critically analyze not only other writing, but their own as well.
DeleteI’ve always leaned towards content equates to better writing than the technical aspects because those seem so formulaic in my opinion. You can write a technically correct paper and have crap for content so as much as I like the idea of an E-grader for instant feedback, I think it takes away from personalized and honest feedback. It almost seems it’s trading the time for quality. It may be able to crank out thousands of essays in seconds but what quality is it sacrificing to do so?
DeleteI can't imagine that the e-grader would be useful for 'good' grading (and again, we find ourselves back into the semantics of 'good' composition...). It's always frustrating to get back a paper and see that nothing's been said about the content but that the technical aspects are flawless. Isn't the point of writing to show your understanding of a subject in addition to the skills? I think that if it was used in conjunction with somebody grading the content, an e-grader could be absolutely fantastic. If the teacher isn't hindered by the need to correct grammar, maybe they'll actually read and consider (GASP!!) the things being written.
DeleteFor that matter, is one side - technicality or content - more important than the other when it comes to writing English papers specifically? With other subjects I'd absolutely say that content is the most crucial aspect, but English is a different breed entirely. Should grading be more driven towards the mechanics of writing in composition classes specifically? I'm almost inclined to say yes.
I have never heard of these grading systems, and am completely shocked that any decent writing instructor utilizes them in their classroom. While I agree with Caitlin that mechanics are an essential element of writing in the English classroom, content is just as essential. An automatic grader is not going to grade whether or not a piece of writing has a clear thesis, how effectively a writer supports their argument, or the complexity of a writers word choice or syntax, which are all techniques focused on in an English class. However, an automatic grader could be useful when an instructor has certain time limitations. An instructor can use the automatic grader to do the dirty work (grading the mechanics) which allows them more time to focus on grading the content, and I'm curious to know if this application of an online grading system is mentioned at all in the article?
DeleteI had never heard of an e-reader or robo-grader for a creative piece. I do not think that it's beneficial at all! I agree with the author's opinion, which is that writing instruction can't be taught, that writers benefit more from feedback, and there is no way an e-grader can find voice and emotion throughout the essays. The only problem I can see with his argument is that not all students have the passion for writing and may even be lacking "voice" in their pieces. Maybe this goes back to the concept of "can voice and emotion be taught?", because if the majority of students fall into this category than the e-reader is time efficient for grading that many essays.
DeleteNice summary! This sounds like an interesting article. My general default is to agree with the author, and side with "human" over "technology," when it comes to areas that are perceived to be subjective: ie writing. I don't however believe that there isn't a place for technology, such as algorithm based graders. Perhaps it's less a question of quality verses correctness, but rather, how content correctness can assist in creating quality?
DeleteWe've had the discussion many times in class that while proper grammar does not automatically equal a quality paper, it does however add credibility to an author's work. Like it or not, we are judged not only for the content of our writing but also by the way in which it is executed. With that being said, I think that professors could perhaps use the robo-graders not in replace of, but in conjunction with, their own unique, human mind. This could potentially ease the impossible task of professors to perfectly grade hundreds of papers, and allow for them to focus more on the voice/goals of their student writers - the best of both worlds.
I'm also curious to know if this article addressed student writers at the middle/high school levels, as well as students at the university level? It seems to me that these automatic graders could be extremely useful at these lower levels as it would help students to fully understand the basics of the writing structure. They could then branch out and focus on things such as: voice, argument, and audience. It may even help shift the attention of young student writers away from just writing for the grade, to being more comfortable with experimentation and development of their own ideas - something, I believe, can only happen if a writer feels comfortable with the "basics" first (at least for school assigned writing pieces).
I tend to agree with the author as well. I think that the e-graders can be useful, but I think it should be used as a few of you stated-- to help with the technical aspects so that the professor or teacher can grade the content. I have to say that I think that judging a paper without the content isn't helpful at all, especially because sometimes the content influences the mechanics used. I think it might be a useful tool for students to quickly check that aspect of their writing, because as Desiree said, it is often used to judge the credibility of a work. I think it would be a useful tool to correct the smaller mistakes so that the student can focus on revising the content. I guess I see it as a revision tool, not a grading one. It can tell the "correctness" of a work, but in my opinion, never the quality.
DeleteComputers can't read. E-readers, even at the most basic level of writing technique are flawed; the algorithms used to determine good writing are based on points of contention rather than facts. For instance one of the assessments is sentence structure, which varies based on genre--academic fields prefer long complex sentences. Journalism requires concise sentences. Further, word length is meaningless without context. E-graders are not currently (and may never be) able to analyze text with the same critical processes that a human reader uses to interpret meaning.
DeleteAlso Skynet.
@ Jake, this does have very Skynet implications lol. Anyway this is a good article. While it is important to know about sentence structure and grammar, it is key to be creative as well, which scholastic writing is not. Proper sentence structure is not conducive to conversational writing. Good writing can come in many forms, which i dont see need to come in proper structure. I read a poem that was shaped like a shoe, with no puncuation whatso ever, and it was brilliant. Now im not saying a paper about DNA should be written like a strand of DNA, but creativity should be able to shine throughout. Scholastic writing lacks creativity and thus probably why so many people struggle with it. I did some work in the writing center and a kid wrote a great paper in my opinion about red light cameras, however it was riddled with cliches and slang. I understood what was going on, but knew it wouldnt fly with his teacher. When i asked him why he wrote like this he said, "I wanted the paper to have my voice!" I couldnt have agreed with him more. Once you learn the basics, one should be able to play around with writing as they see fit.
DeleteAfter taking linguistics, and having read a book by Steven King on writing, I've come to view writing as another means of communication not just in the current moment but, as Steven King described it, across time and distances. In that case the goal of good writing is to achieve whatever communication you set out to make. What is the message (a story, a personal experience, an argument, informing, provocative) and what is the response your hoping for by sending it (to remember, to be heard, to make the receiver think)? Not to mention how will you go about making the receiver willing to listen? Content or structure? Both, but certainly not in the way that technology grades it.
DeleteAfter about an hour of stripping HTML, retyping the entire post up in the comment box, and yelling at the computer, I decided 'screw this stupid-ass comment box' and just made my article review a blog post. Sorry for any inconvenience, but the post is here instead:
ReplyDeletehttp://caitalie.blogspot.com/2013/11/and-award-for-shittiest-blogging.html
While I like the idea of PBL, I think that classrooms, especially at the 300-400 university level, categorically necessitate at least some kind of guiding principle or figurehead. Without a strong and competent backbone (read: teacher) even the most enthusiastic of students will run the risk of misinterpretation and/or misappropriation of more ideologically complex materials. I feel this is especially true in the liberal arts, where denotative/connotative differences in both grammar and vocabulary, which may be central to the defamiliarization/constitution of the authors topic, can be easily overlooked or dismissed. Do you think that PBL would be more effective in a more scientific learning setting where the results are less up to interpretation than in a liberal arts class?
DeleteFirst things first, I like how you read an article discussing problem solving and then displayed your own when the site didn't work!
DeleteAs for the article, I recently took an elementary mathematics course that worked in this way. We were given a new number system and were told to solve various problems (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, horrible fractions and decimals, etc.) using the new system. It basically made us learn math from the beginning again, and I realized that learning to problem solve without being told how was really interesting. Two plus two didn't equal four because I was told it did, I had to fully understand the concept first. The "feed a man for a day" thing really.
I think it would be interesting to know how composition would happen organically without being given a structure first. I think it would be less of a plug and chug method (opening paragraph, thesis statement, state arguments, argue, conclude) and would be structured for each subject of the composition. I do also think however, that for academic writing, it would be like handing someone a ton of art equipment and asking them to paint the Arc de Triomphe. Then again, we would all have read by this point, so I'm not really sure what I think.
The point you bring up about classroom structure and motivation is a great point though, and many wouldn't learn or put in the effort, and in that case, the ones that do put in the effort aren't receiving the same from classmates.
To answer your question, I am not a fan of leading each other in most cases. Especially when new information is given, I like it to be explained, or at least have someone with a more thorough understanding to lead a bit and nudge everyone to a complete understanding. I do like cooperative learning and bringing each other to understanding when it works, but often times it is very difficult to create a structure that makes that possible, and I think if often depends on the subject being learned.
Problem Based Learning seems like a skill-based learning. That is students are only learning to solve problem's or more specifically one problem at a time (read: how to get your classmates off their lazy asses). Though, it could be argued that this would train students to apply the same modes of thinking to all problems, focusing on this kind of skill based learning would hinder the dissemination of general knowledge, which would only serve to make students less capable.
DeleteYeah technology!
DeleteHey y'all.
ReplyDeleteI read an article called "Translingual Literacy, Language Difference, and Matters of Agency" by Min-Zhan Lu and Bruce Horner. Lu and Horner wrote this article using the "White Space" essay from Bartholomae's "Inventing the University". This article discusses the idea of a translingual composition setting. What they mean by this, is essentially no longer isolating those who write against the grain of the "norm". They explore not only agency, but also the idea of rewriting agency and the idea of differences. They conclude with addressing students' language needs and rights, and the concerns that come with a translingual approach to composition. They propose the idea of allowing language differences to become the new "norm" and reevaluating the idea of Standard Written English.
I believe this is important to current conversation because people are changing everyday. The culture of the world we live in continues to grow and become more of a melting pot. We cannot remain ignorant to the fact English is not the same as it was at the beginning of composition studies. We, as an academic community, need to come around and support the diversity that people present with their culture and background. As Lu and Horner address in their article, if we continue to demand that people assimilate to what some people define as the Standard Written English norm, we will take away their ability to be genuine.
This article is incredibly useful to today's writing community because it addresses a topic that people tend to overlook, difference. Having an approach to making a change in the way we view language variation is very helpful. They discuss an approach, but also the benefits and concerns with such an approach. This article also raises relevant questions, one of the most important (similar to one we discussed in class on Thursday) who determines the "norm"? And how can we be sure we won't see the same effect in reverse?
I think this is a really interesting point. I think basing any writing on a "standard" English is a little ridiculous, since people tend to think that spoken or the English of thought has no standard. We can argue that there is a mainstream English, but even then the English that is spoken is not exact anywhere, and how would we decide who is the most "correct?" The idea of a melting pot is a perfect example of this, because there was never a time that modern English would ever have a standard that anyone can agree on. Even much of grammar is subjective, and many prescriptivist rules aren't even made for the specifics of English, but were emulated from other languages.
DeleteI believe we speak, and write, in order to be understood, and limiting the use of language also limits the way people can express themselves, or label it as "incorrect." All of that on top of speaking another language and bringing in those norms add to the fact that a new standard needs to be considered.
I love that you chose this article because in my more ignorant of moments, I’ve tended to agree with the standard English as best practice in writing. However, I’ve come around, and now I completely agree that if there are limitations set for writers, who have different cultural backgrounds, family histories, and primary languages, we also limit their ability to be genuine. This is such a closed minded way to discuss composition because with the constant change and blending of different people today, what is the point of “preserving” the Standard Written English and what used to be considered normal? Where does that put us ahead compared to if we accepted those differences and diversity?
DeleteThe article you provide a summary for reminds me of the article we were assigned in class by A. Suresh Canagarajah about the integration of world Englishes into writing. I am as intrigued by the article you chose as I was by Canagarajah's. With English becoming an internationally learned and spoken language, I believe it is important to reexamine Standard Written English taking into consideration the authenticity that comes with integrating other languages into writing. I am curious to know more about the concerns Lu and Horner address. What exactly are those concerns and who do they belong to? Do Lu and Horner provide an answer in face of these concerns?
DeleteI may come under some fire for these views I am about to present, but as mentioned in my summary, I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate sometimes.
DeleteWhile I am not opposed to the idea of difference, I often wonder how far we should allow difference to take us, before English is swallowed up into a new language. I feel many people see Standard English as this overbearing system, but really, there is some flexibility within it, and difference can be shown through style without horribly butchering the language.
I am not opposed to the occasional change within the language, as evolution is inevitable in all things, but where would we be if we had not had standardized English? Without the rules and guidelines that it provided, America could very well be divided by completely separate languages.
To point out a perhaps biased example, when we travel to other countries, we tend to want to learn their language. Japan is a prime example of a country that has all of their students from elementary on learn English due to its global influence. Is it so wrong to ask those who come in to our country to learn English? Or do we have to remove our rules, and form an entirely new language just to accommodate them?
Morgan, while I agree with you to a point, the problem is that there is not actually a standard of the English language. English is spoken all over the world, and the differences in grammar, rules, syntax, usage, morphology, etc. are actually bigger than we would expect as English speakers. The English spoken in the UK, Australia, parts of India, The United States, as well as many other places are all natively spoken, and the differences are vast. Even if we just focus on the United States, there are dozens of dialects, and even what we consider mainstream US English isn't standard. The English they are taught in Japan is not going to be the same standard as many places, and then it becomes a question of who is the most correct.
DeleteIt is also nearly impossible to decide who is the most correct, because many of the languages are spoken natively, and no dialect is without rules. Every dialect of the English language is understood by the speaker and has very specific ways it is spoken, and all are rule-based systems.
I also doubt that we can control the changes made, and the question of "what do we allow?" is almost moot, because what are we doing in order to stop the changes? What can we do? And why?
Morgan, I agree with you as well. I feel that we have to be careful how much accommodation we choose to put in to our language situation. But also to branch off of Davina's response, not only do we have to decide who is most correct, but we have to decide who determines what is and isn't correct.
DeleteI feel that with the acceptance of change and differences in language we need to not forget our beginnings with Standard English. However, we also have people who are absolutely and entirely against any language other than English being recognized as formal within an academic setting. My main argument with this article is that our acceptance needs to increase as an overall nation.
The majority dictate the norm. How exactly was your article explaining the cultural diversity? Was it that Standard English is actually overlooked because it is not understood by individuals who mainly speak another language? Or is it that because America is such a multicultural nation that the idea of Standard English can't apply fully since some overlook it? Maybe not on purpose because they were taught a different way but because no one actually teaches English writing with the same strict attitude that they once did?
Delete@ Davina: I must disagree that there is no "Standard" of English. It is true that English is spoken all over the world, and that there are colloquial differences that are apparent, that does not mean there is not an underlying "Standard" beneath it all. While there is some difficulty to be expected, I could travel to England, Australia, or even closer to home in the South of America, and as long as they are speaking English, I should be able to understand them (I make this distinction because I know in some areas of the south many have begun to mix Spanish with English). English has the same origins no matter where it is spoken, so the same basic building blocks are there, even if certain words may be different. While there may be no outspoken "Standard" of English for comparison, that is not really the idea of a "Standard" of English that I am trying to get at. I am merely referencing the ideas of syntax, and morphology that English is built off of. While there will be differences in the World Englishes, the origins have not change and it is those origins that we all should teach, so that we can better understand the differences in the dialects, without destroying the language itself by trying to incorporate all languages into one "true" English. If no one has taken it, I highly recommend the class "History of the English Language." It's a tough class but it really helps my point. For example, if we understand some of the origins of the morphology of English, we might see that "Stupider" was actually once the proper way to phrase the word, rather than the now more arguably correct, "more stupid." It isn't that someone saying stupider is not using English, or that their dialect is so different we can't understand them. The basic building blocks, or the "Standard" English that I speak of is still there. Yes, it is true the majority should dictate the norm, because in all honesty that is just the way it is. Majority rules, as the saying goes. However, I do not believe American English is any superior to British English or Australian English. I do, however, believe that English itself, as a language, needs to be more preserved and its origins better taught. When we begin taking in other syntax and allowing other languages to being shaping and changing English, we are no longer using English. We are creating another language entirely that has too much of a chance to fall into chaos and divide the world by region as it was long ago. I feel in a world where we are pushing so hard for globalization, a "Standard" to follow so that everyone may stay on the same page, whether they have access to the latest technology and can keep up with the rapid changes of society, or are stuck out in the rural areas were change comes slowly.
DeleteHey.
ReplyDeleteSummary:
The article I read was from the JAC. It was written by David Belich and Mary R. Boland. The title is: Introduction: Who Does the Teaching? Learning in Different Directions.
In this article the authors quoted several essays that spoke to the duality of learning between teachers and students. In a nut shell, the authors state that there is just as much to learn form the students to the teachers as does the teachers to the students.
A quote that I found interesting that I feel sums up this article is: "We all do the teaching because we all have something to learn."
The article begins with the thought of enlightenment. It has been a common idea or instruction of sorts that the teacher or parent are there to enlighten the child/student for general enlightenment. By keeping the teaching "open ended", the learning aspect is universal and never ending.
The authors then speak to dilemmas that may throw a cognitive wrench in the mix. When there are students who are deaf, african americans, white, women or asian americans, etc…, there is an immediate assumption associated to the ability to learn and at what level. One portion that was interesting is when the authors said that the assumption is that deaf people, because they can't speak, learn slower or have a learning disadvantage because they can't speak. Another assumption was that for one day students of African American descent should speak the way they would typically with their friends and in their cultural arena. They major dilemma was that the white kids felt they were segregated and couldn't or wouldn't understand or mingle well because they we obviously not of that culture. But the African American's were hesitant to participate because they felt it would make them seem stupid if they spoke in the African American Vernacular English (AAVE). The point was to introduce cross culture collaboration so that all, including the teacher, can learn something different and a bit edgy. It turns out that the collaboration was tentative at best.
The authors referenced Allison Warriner which talked about a student centered classroom. Where students took over perspectives and responsibilities from the teacher therefore adding heuristic ideals. The narrative showed that teachers received heuristics just as the students did. The teacher because a student participant. This alternative mode of teacher allowed the students to amend the syllabus. Everyone in turn would be teaching and learning.
Importance:
I believe that this article has good relevance to the future of teaching. The modern movement, especially with the continued emergence of new technology, gives way for many modes of learning, some of which are profoundly student based, therefore they add their own element of teaching to the classroom. There has to be a balance of teaching and learning from teachers. No teacher can predict the level of intelligence of their students or for that matter the cultural diversities.
Useful:
This article is useful primarily because it shows the teacher taking a step back and saying, "maybe I don't have all the answers." or "Maybe I have to conform with the changes happening in the world from which the students are adapting to." And "The students voice is an intelligent voice which should be heard."
I know my quotes seem preachy, but I hate a close minded teacher who thinks their solo way of classroom thinking is the only opinion to consider. The collaboration of the classroom shouldn't be students only. Teachers involvement should not be devoted to simply advising.
After having read the article provided by violetfire, I think my article is similar in a way. The personal element can be important in the classroom, in an example, of a cultural context. There is a very human acceptance when someone is able to relate to something personal. Not necessarily something bad or sad, but personal. Whether it's speaking in a different form of English or sharing foods from your culture. For college life, it is a more mature form of "show and tell."
DeleteI have to agree entirely. I think this is something that should be more heavily enforced. I can't count the number of times I have been in classes when the teacher shut down students who had differing opinions from their own. It is a very difficult environment to function in, but how do we make sure teachers understand the importance of letting students teach them too?
DeleteI liked the quote you picked "We all do the teaching because we all have something to learn” because in my best classroom experiences, my teachers have shared a similar philosophy. Breaking down the traditional barriers of teacher vs student opens up doors to new ways of thinking and interacting which tends to lead to discovery, and isn’t that the basis of learning to begin with... I mean lets just talk about how much we retain when simply being lectured and talked at for an hour and fifteen minutes compared to those times we’re able to interact, discuss opposing opinions and debate the things we care about. Huge difference, at least from my seat.
DeleteWhile I do acknowledge the benefits of this type of teaching I wonder how the power struggle between student and teacher changes with this structure? I have been in classes where this works and some where it simply does not because as soon as the teacher allows for class discussion in small groups, the students get off topic very quickly. I'm not saying teachers and students don't have a lot to learn from each other but both have to be active in the learning environment for this to work.
DeleteI hope the modern methods of teaching continue to move in this direction. I think the inclusion of everyone's opinions and exchanging thoughts improves the learning environment and increases the esteem of all in the classroom. If students feel a part of the process, it can be a motivating factor. Discerning quality contributions from not so great contributions is also a lesson of preparation as well. Not always a perfect method, but it should be a part of the overall teaching picture.
DeleteI read an article called “Forging Rhetorical Subjects: Problem Based Learning in the Writing Classroom” by Paula Rosinski and Tim Peeples. In the article two teachers try to implement problem based learning in two different classes in order to bring it back into the conversation of composition professionals and also redefine a successful writer and determine how to educate writers to be successful. They begin the article with a view at a classroom practicing problem based learning showing how hectic the environment can be but also how much actual grappling with the material goes on also so students can learn new things for themselves. Next, they explain problem based learning as real life problem introduced in the classroom that has no clear cut answers and students must figure the problem out for themselves actively seeking out knowledge and learning through the experience. Through this process they also learn that each writing situation has a context, audience and reader to be considered. Rosinski and Peeples implemented problem based learning as an experiment in two of their classrooms; a freshman composition course and an intro to professional writing and rhetoric course. Those in the former were given a task to explore online databases in order to which should be used depending on different rhetorical situations. The students discovered that each source has a bias and writers must consider them in each individual writing situation. Those in the intro to professional writing had to define the field of professional writing and rhetoric and ended up understanding the course on a deeper level because of this process. While the teachers doing the study do not claim problem based learning is the most effective method of teaching they encourage other teachers to experiment with it in their classrooms. They redefine the successful writer as one who is adaptable the rhetorical situation, context, audience, and confident working with the chaotic writing process.
ReplyDeleteI think this article was important because it reintroduces a useful pedagogy into composition conversation. The two authors provide their own empirical research and an interesting idea besides. By doing all this work they show the professionals in composition how the pedagogy was useful to them and encourage others to try it for themselves. Also, the two took a learning pedagogy that doesn’t scream composition and applied it to the field showing how it can help writing not just other subjects.
I think the points in this article can be effective providing the subject matter allows for alternative teaching. I think it is imperative that students have one, the historical experience of the subject matter, and two, the preconceived understanding that this form of learning is what will be expected from their teachers.
DeleteI think it is definitely a helpful way to ensure the student is further engaged in the class.
I read the same article, so I have a question for you - do you think that this classroom style would potentially be too 'alternative' for composition courses? It seems like their explanations of PBL in science-based courses was a lot clearer than their example of composition PBL. Do you think it would be a little too broad for English classes? How would one go about grading PBL students if there are no clear assignments?
DeleteJust as the authors of the article argue that students must find the appropriate tools to use for each rhetorical situation, I think that this is true of the very "challenge-based" instructional format presented here as well. In other words, I think that it can, and often should, have a place in the classroom; however, it entirely depends on the end result that the professor is trying to have the students reach. It must be asked for each situation, "What is the goal of using such a learning tool?" As I'm sure we have all experienced, at one point or another in our educational careers, doing something (an assignment) for the sake of doing it, accomplishes nothing. There must be deeper underlying meaning to both the professor and the student.
DeleteYaaay it worked ( ;
ReplyDeleteI read an article called "The Role of Invention in Digital Dating Site Profile Composition,” which caught my eye because my parents are newly divorced and both using dating websites to find their new match. I knew I was going to like this article because we constantly talk about how you write for a particular discourse community and how social media might change a person’s writing style because of the forum used. Facebook, Twitter, etc. are usually the forums we mention in class but online dating hasn’t been brought up so I’m curious what other students think about how it might change composition knowing the purpose of why they create the profiles. Now this article was cool because it lays out some different composition theories and how using them to create a dating profile might actually change the whole composition process entirely. The first mention of discovering vs creating new ideas and I was like oh shit I have to pick a side here, but then it brings up the idea of “inventiveness” as a combination of both. Here is where things with online dating fall into place, because the writers have the choice to continually change their profiles based on the responses they get from viewers so this is discovery-planning out your profile before you finalize it, and creation-a sort of edit as you go type of composition for these sites. I like that the article brings up the idea that there is no real set-in-stone way to compose, for most of us anyway, because with the use of technology for things like social media, online dating, word processing, it usually ends up being a nice blend of many forms of composition to arrive at a finished product you can be satisfied with.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting part of online dating is that your profile is like a one page sales flyer to sell yourself to the hottest, smartest, next ex wife who might be searching too, so you have to make yourself as appealing as possible while still being you. How do you sell yourself while sounding funny, intelligent and interesting enough to get an email from an interested match? You write, and rewrite, your profile to present the best you to millions of users. Or you can hire a ghost writer to do it for you. Yes people that’s real, you can really hire someone to write your dating profile for you in hopes that it’ll be good enough to attract the woman of your dreams. So then, doesn’t that just throw a wrench into this whole thing if someone else, using the given prompts from the site, can write an entire profile for someone else given only a basic run down of their likes/dislikes, habits, personality, etc? I don’t know how I feel about that yet, I’m still trying to figure it out but I do feel that knowing the community I’d be writing for, I’d wanna write my own damn profile if I was gonna hop on that bandwagon.
I’m glad someone wrote an article about online dating and composition because apparently 17% of married couples met using online dating sites. Obviously some people have written creative, interesting, and personable profiles and met their mates, and clearly some are still working on that whole “inventiveness” part but it’s becoming common enough that composition for the purpose of online dating is one to be addressed, and maybe given a list of do’s and dont’s.
How funny!!! I never thought that there would be a very particular rhetoric for online daters, but it makes sense. The word choice, pictures, etc all lend a hand to the possibility of gaining someones attention. I would assume, like with any other medium, there is a particular diction one uses to attract a mate. No different I would assume when presenting a resume for a job. The scanner looks for certain words to choose the most qualified candidate. Funky.
DeleteThere are so many dating sites out there. One of the most "interesting" ones I've seen is called Farmer's Only, That commercial was funny. Not only is the title super specific, but I wondered what would be key words that would attract farmers to one another? Maybe things like, manuer, rake, hoe (not the other kind necessarily), corn, wheat belt or hay.
N
This is really interesting. I agree that this would be the perfect place to observe people writing to a specific audience, because they would be writing to the people they hope would read it, so they have a specific reader in mind while they compose. I also really like that you brought up that it is a continuous editing process. That is a perfect example, because people will change what they write based on the responses they receive. It also kinda fits in with the exhibitionist/voyeur thing we were talking about, and it shows how people use composition to present themselves. How they write their profiles is very important, because it not only says a lot about them in their descriptions, but also in how they write them out, so the ghost writer thing is weird! Like someone could accurately portray you when the written part of the profile and how you did it is part of the sell. It's also kind of a multimedia presentation of themselves, because like you said, they're using pictures to create an image of themselves as well.
DeleteI think it would be interesting to compare someone’s regular writing, say from a journal entry or everyday standard writing task to their own dating profile online (it could all remain anonymous) and see how different their composition between the two is. We all write differently depending on the audience, but even my “best writing” which is done in school for academic purposes is simply for a grade, not writing to sell myself for lack of a better phrase, so it would be a completely different style of writing.
DeleteIt’s not at all a stretch to say that most people have big egos and I’m curious how much of that goes into their composition on these dating profiles. Even down to how selective they are on word choice because one bad joke or sloppy one liner and it could cause someone to navigate away from your profile and lose interest in exploring a connection. And the pictures Davina, that’s a new article altogether. How many stories have we heard about people using fake pictures, or old snap shots when they had more hair and less of a beer belly. It’s all about self representation, the pictures on the profile and the dialogue can make or break your “date-ability rating."
What a great article! If anything, we all could all fall back on being ghost writers for singles looking for mingles! I have a good friend who has not had a girlfriend in well over a dozen years. There are several reasons for this...but one is not because of his personality, because he is a wonderful man. However, every once in a while he writes a post on Facebook or sends me a text and his grammar is just terrible. In fact it is so terrible that whatever wittiness he is trying to express is overlooked by the reader because the reader is sifting through the mess of grammatical mistakes. I thought of him immediately while I was reading this post. I wonder if he has used online dating sites and if so, how it would come across to a potential date. I would argue that composition and voice can make or break a potential dating match. Does the article state if the ghost writer is more successful in date matches or the writer themselves?
DeleteWow, this one does sound pretty interesting. I imagine that there's a whole lot of pathos that wanders into dating profiles as a whole, but I wouldn't have thought to look for many patterns beyond that and, y'know, the usual cliches. Doesn't everyone just go for the 'piña coladas, long walks on the beach, staring wistfully at one another in the candlelight' trope?? Has the media been lying to me!?
DeleteAnyways, I'd love to see further studies on this, and on composition in online communities as a whole. The necessity of uniqueness when presenting oneself in an online community is fascinating - you're just another name and hyperlink among thousands of others. How do you use composition to set yourself apart while still being 'you'? Would also like to see this article juxtaposed with one on digital literacy/media usage. Have to wonder when it comes to dating profiles... does the picture or the blurb makes a bigger difference.
...additionally, I am kind of laughing about the ghost writers thing. The moment you realize that you need to pay someone else to make your life sound interesting is the moment you should probably step away from the computer and find some new hobbies. ;)
Selling oneself seems to be the ultimate rhetorical situation we face everyday. I recall Dr. Rivas saying the clothes we choose to wear, part of that identity we present to others and sell or convince each other of who we are and why what we say may be of importance. Online dating appears to take this to an ultimate level of personal rhetorical presentation in truly attempting to convince a very specific audience of our worth. Overall, a fascinating article and one I hope I don't have to reference anytime soon.
DeleteI wish they’d had stats about the matches made with ghost written profiles and those personally written because those are number I’d love to see. It didn’t go into much detail on the ghost writers unfortunately and I assume that’s because it’s supposed to remain under the table so to speak, so no one would know you didn’t actually write your own profile. What a crock, sad that there’s even a way to cheat at online dating, I mean, when the real you isn’t good enough. Ha.
DeleteI also think bad grammar, spelling errors, etc. would turn off a handful of potential partners because although studies prove otherwise, in my opinion those kinds of errors give off an impression of lower intelligence or education. Although it’s super judgy, I immediately think that even when I try to be open minded. I think it’s a safe bet that profiles with similar errors or those that simply lack decent writing, probably get fewer replies or matches.
I think this is interesting as well because many people tie intelligence into the level of writing skill and ability to convey a message through writing, so the online dating profiles are really difficult to compose, I would imagine. I think that those who aren't very strong writers would be seen as unintelligent or not dating material.
DeleteDonna Strickland “Caring About the Dismal Science” JAC Volume 27.
ReplyDelete“To care about economics, in sum, requires effort.” (p.214)
The “Dismal Science” is a reference to Thomas Carlyle’s coining of the phrase in 1849 to describe the study of economics which were outside the immediate purview of the government. Strickland has adapted the phrase so that its historical connotations will add a note of voyeuristic mystique to the papers examination of modern capitalism’s unnoted, often unperceived effect on the compositional process. Strickland attempts to decipher the ‘old negative emotions’ many ‘students of the liberal arts’ attach to Economics by tying these negative emotions to the ‘reputation’ of Economics as a ‘dismal’ science / a boring science / an unchanging and uninteresting science. In contrast to the Liberal Arts, which proudly maintains its Nietzschean title and reputation, Economics is viewed as bankrupt of emotional content, a soul dead science of rote formula memorization, disconnected from everyday experience, containing no room for the ‘choices’ and ‘interpretations’ that the Liberal Arts treasure.
“The hidden and alternative economic activities that everywhere abound.” (P.219)
Strickland then attempts to reverse this conception by comparing pedagogical similarities between Economics and Grammar (obviously the most creative and self-expressive aspect of the liberal arts). In both sciences ‘passivity’ and ‘normative dominancy’ dictate the discursive structure of debated concepts. Strickland also lengthily points out that both sciences also share an important emphasis on their ‘actors’ making ‘correct choices within their micro and macro structures’ (what kind of science doesn’t?). Where an economist has to juggle the localized economic trends with whatever rules they may have learned, which may not entirely apply to their ‘rhetorical situation’, they may have to improvise or otherwise modify their strategy (read: discursive method) in a similar way that a writer unfamiliar with a discursive body may have to modify their grammatical or discursive strategy in order to succeed in a given situation. Strickland’s point is that while Economics and Grammar are commonly seen as homogenous and empirical, leading all possible formulations and variations to a single inescapable outcome, their passivity is in most part an illusion to those who do not possess a fair perspective of the fragmented totality of their component discourses.
“Economics… should help… overcome what often appears to be a learned helplessness.” (p.220)
ReplyDeleteEconomics is unique, Strickland claim’s, in that a good practitioner and student of its’ sciences will always push for alternatives and differing viewpoints in order to understand more components of an almost unimaginably massive whole. She argues that Liberal Arts students should understand and perform Economics in order to familiarize themselves with what she terms the “hope” (p. 220+1) of Economics. That is, the endless variations, inroads, and secret ways by which meaning and right-meaning are discovered and maintained in the discursive zeitgeist of their component schools.
“Leftist academics can also sound “pretty defeatist” these days.” (p.220)
I think this article draws very interesting and creative parallels between free market economics, borrowed Feminist terminology, Marxist learning models, and ‘proper’ grammar; making the prospect and potential advantages of studying the dreaded “dismal science” more palatable and relatable to someone with a primarily liberal arts background. However, outside of affirming the benefits of an astute cross-disciplinary approach which we have already covered in class (D’Angelo’s examination of the residual mid 17th century psychology present in compositional textbooks for instance) the article does little more than make its claim and offer its comparisons. Strickland’s argument, that studying economics leads to an important formative step in learners questioning established authorities and developing their own authorities, is well supported and undoubtedly an interesting idea. However studying Economics, while admittedly a smart move, just isn’t necessary in order to learn that one should question what one is taught and find alternative paths and answers instead of following accepted pedagogies blindly.
Working Boundaries: From Student Resistance to Student Agency - Enjoy!
ReplyDeleteIn the article, "Working Boundaries: From Student Resistance to Student Agency," Gwen Gorzelsky argues that students have the tendency to default to resistance when it comes to traditional pedagogy implemented by professors in the classroom. She believes that by professors doing so, students are left with a feeling of isolation and intimidation. Gorzelsky then goes on to present the idea that this can and has been overcome by allowing student writers to create their own boundaries for discourse within the classroom and by fostering the ability of the students to take ownership of their ideas and composition pieces - this concept is referred to as "Agency." Essentially, Gorzelsky believes that students need to be valued for their ideas, while the walls of intimidation need to be broken down.
This can further be accomplished by professors and students assuming the roles of both teacher and learner. As a side-effect, a new language will be manifested to further aid in removing boundaries. The key to this, according to Gorzelsky, is mutuality. Both students and professors must share the initiation of, and further discussion of, topics within the classroom.
Gorzelsky studied the pedagological practices of one writing professor in particular, Justin Vidovic, who used a mixed form of traditional instruction with non-traditional instruction within his classroom. What Gorzelsky found was that Vidovic was able to successfully engage his students in the information being presented, as well as encourage his students to develop and voice their own individual ideas/beliefs. This then, of course, naturally carried over to the written texts composed by the students, helping them to discover and develop their own voices at writers. From this, Gorzelsky determined that the emergence of patterns found from this one professor's instruction could be generally useful in breaking down boundaries. She then summarizes by stating that the best way to engage students fully is by combining the old forms of teaching, such as lecture and "skills formation," with new forms, such as student-led discussions and comment validation.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteThanks for bearing with me for that exciting summary... As dry as it may have been in parts though, it was actually a pretty good article. The reason I think this is important is because it directly relates to what we've been discussing in class. It perfectly relates to students speaking outside of their "discourse communities." Not only that, but a lot of the philosophies laid out in this article are philosophies that most of our professors at least dabble with in their classes. This class, for instance, has been formatted where we lead many aspects of the class. When professors implement this mix of the "old" and the "new," do you guys think that we actually benefit at students? Or is there more to it? Can a formula or pattern be duplicated by a professor in order to be successful? Or is that like saying, "Anyone can sing... Just follow this pattern?" Lastly, and more simply, do you guys feel like when professors allow students to speak freely, without judgment (including being graded down), that they thrive of become more lazy - or does it just depend on the student?
Articles like this one are then important to help not only professors to think outside of the box, but also us as students. Often, I think it's easy for us to judge our classes based on our perceptions of the professor. To look at it differently, could it be that when our professors "fail" or "succeed" in our minds, that they are just a result of such research as presented in this article?
Thanks for listening to my ramblings... Feel free to respond to some... Or all... Or none of this... Cheers!
Oh, and on a side note, this article manages to bring up the "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air"... Which is kind of awesome... If you watched it growing up... But I'm kind of a nerd...
So this is a story all about how... NO NO! BAD!
DeleteIs it just me, or are most of these articles phrased at the beginning with the intention that they will be for students, and in the end, they end up as a shorthand list of pedagogical dos and don'ts for instructors? Classroom "ownership" seems to be used as an effective surrogate in many of these reviews for other problems that seem to prevent teachers from teaching. Honestly, this seems to go back to many of these writers writing with the assumed authority (sans referenced hard evidence) of someone who holds simultaneous PhD's in everything from classroom sociology to cognitive neuroscience to syllogistic logic. I don't think that the right questions are being asked when the best and brightest of solutions involve the blind leading the blind.
So, Matthew, what are the right questions?
DeleteAnd despite the "list of pedagogical dos and don'ts for instructors" are teachers/professors not believed to take ownership of their classrooms when they determine how the class will run? Which suggestions they will and won't take?
I'm not sure what you mean... I was referencing more towards the conventional conservative direction of teaching, where the teacher lectures and the students listen. In this model, the teacher maintains all of the ownership privileges of the classroom, since he/she is the focus and therefore responsible for all of the material. This model is exclusionary in the sense that the other members of the classroom have little to no control or input on how the information is interpreted or delivered. In a classroom like the ones described where ownership is split and delineated to each member of the classroom in the hopes of engaging members of the classroom that would otherwise dismiss the lesson, there exists (in my perception at least) the fundamental problem of "the blind leading the blind." That is, when the ownership and therefore the responsibility of actually plumbing the metaphorical depths, and getting it right, of a concept falls on those who are learning, there is a significant risk that there will be some kind of ideological confusion or misinterpretation. In the worst of cases, the instructor will not intervene and the confusion/misinterpretation will persist in the classroom, the members of the classroom will have their understanding muddled by this "inferior lesson" and no real ground will be broken on new ideas.
Delete1. How can teachers make the information they are teaching more relatable / absorbable for their students without compromising lesson\quality. (socratic classes that lack a clear and authoritative figurehead to contextualize ideas end up coming off as compulsive discussion groups with a lackadaisical or incompetent leadership.)
Delete2. How can lessons be structured/streamlined to make their interpretation easier? (Rather than including an 30+ page original work that contains ridiculous and pretentious language like "obfuscated zeitgeist weltanschauug" in the lesson, teachers should choose the best possible works to sum up categories of thought and use the platforms these works create. Schlovsky, Barthes, Marx, Derrida, Saussure, hooks(sic), etc etc etc, all of these writers are quintessential of a particular mode of thought, semiotics, liberal humanism, marxism, post structuralism, psychoanalytics. By reading the pillars of a particular ideological movement, and comparing these pillars to one another in the context of their timeline and/or historical background, students will learn more than they otherwise would by just sharing their opinions and "feelings" *shudder* about a series of nearly ideologically indistinguishable texts.)
3.Are teachers aware of the flaws of the works they are teaching? If so, do they readily expose these flaws to their students? Do they return to these flaws and conversations later when treatise writers which cover the subject are introduced to the lesson plan? (A correct implementation of the described pedagogy.)
Alright, lets see if this post goes through this time...
DeleteFirst of all, great summary. I didn't find it dry (especially considering some of the essays we have read this semester). Now, to go on to your questions: I feel that a large amount of what a professor can and can not get away with in a classroom depends on the level of respect they have from their students. If a professor presents himself/herself well, and gains initial respect of the students, then they may be able to introduce "new" ideas into the "old" and have a more positive outcome. Similarly, I feel in a classroom where students respect their professor, they are more likely to engage in meaningful conversation when allowed to speak freely, where as if they did not respect their professor, they might go on to random topics or even inappropriate ones just to get on the professor's nerves.
As for if a professor can follow a formula or pattern, I would argue it depends on how they present it. If they present it with a sense of purpose and eagerness, then they might convince the class they put effort into it, and get effort back from the class, even if the teacher just googled "how to teach math" and printed out the first page they found. However, that being said, if the teacher presents it where it is obvious they have no idea what they are doing, they almost immediately lose the class, and many students may decide to not give most of their effort when it feels the teacher did not put forth the same effort, at least, in my opinion.
*Note = This post was a bit longer but after typing it twice and it still not going through, I gave up and just tried to shorten my response. Sorry.
You are right, this article sound as if it is what Dr. Rivas based his philosophy of our class on this semester, and I agree that it has valid points. I don't think the old model was very effective, nor do I think that having the entire class be student-led is very effective, but I agree that a mixture of both will be the most effective. I don't think an airtight formula can be created for this mixture because I do think that there are different classes and different teachers, but I think some guidelines can be established. For example, if students are having a hard time contributing to the class, the teacher may need to spend more time covering important aspects that the students may not be able to grasp yet, maybe even taking a different approach to help aid in understanding. Or if a teacher notices that students end up with glazed looks by the middle of class, he or she may need to have a discussion or activity that will be more engaging to the class. I approve of this train of thought, however, working towards a solution instead of being happy with the status quo.
Delete@ Morgan L.
DeleteI completely agree with you. I think that the respect students have for their instructor has the greatest influence on the success of implemented pedagogical practices: weather they are new or old. This also perhaps speaks directly to the pattern question. Because respect is something that is not ever freely given away but always must be earned, if a professor unsuccessfully implements the usage of such a pattern, the respect of his/her students is automatically compromised. This however makes me think of another related question: are students, or should students be, partially responsible for the success of the pedagogical practices of their professors? In other words, does the willingness of students to initially participate in the classroom (regardless of the teaching style) effect the success of the professor and therefore determine the level of respect offered to such professor - at least to some extent?
@ violetfire
DeleteWell said. I particularly find your last thought interesting: "...working towards a solution instead of being happy with the status quo." I think that far too often in academia scholars are happy to point out a problem, but rarely do they offer equal effort towards creating a solution. When they do focus interest towards finding a solution, it is also often carved out as a black and white problem - leaving no room for gray areas. The challenge with this of course, as you mentioned, is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
@ Matthew
DeleteI completely agree with you that most of these articles seem to be aimed at creating the "perfect" professor by offering checklists of correct pedagogical practices - which, of course, is impossible anyway. I also think it is some sort of irony that these scholars offering such advice are often so far removed from the classroom, they couldn't possibly hold first-hand knowledge beyond mere observation. In this sense even, as you mentioned, the blind truly are leading the blind.
Also, great expansion of your "questions." It seems to me that the implementation of new pedagogical practices can come across as a professor being "unprepared" or "lazy," if they are not incorporated in a well-planned manner. I agree that by students simply sharing their opinions, the concepts being covered can be left muddied and incomplete. Perhaps this why there is no perfect pattern to be found but rather, time and place must be considered.
It took a lithe more time than anticipated, but I found an article that explores the format we're utilizing to communicate here and how technology is, in essence redefining writing itself.
ReplyDelete"Folksonomy" and the Restructuring of Writing Space by Jodie Nicotra, from the September, 2009 journal "College Composition and Communication", Vo.61, No.1, caught my eye for a couple reasons. One, it was recent and two, I love it when it looks like an English article is based on a made up word I've never seen before.
The definition of writing, the spatial aspects that blogs allow or limit and the ability to draw information from several sources into one (i.e., pictures, quotes, music, etc), and writing as metaphor are all examined concisely in this piece.
My favorite quote utilized by the author hit on a key aspect and food for thought, "Arguably, the digital technologies of new media merely amplify what the process of knowledge production has been all along. Though perhaps we tried to characterize knowledge production as a linear, controlled, argument-driven process, in actuality it always has been a deeply intuitive, affectively driven process of recombination and reorganization. Practices like blogging make this DJ process of “remixing” even more apparent."
I think we can all agree technology is pushing boundaries beyond the traditional linear methods of communication. If one is limited by characters, word choice is critical, if one has access to link items or articles to support their rhetorical position it changes modern approaches to writing process.
I know, you're still curious, what the heck is "folksonomy" anyway? It is not a musical group, or some old person kicking back and reading stories out loud, as meanings that first jumped into my head when I saw the word. Instead, the author offers is a combination of folk and taxonomy. I know, that wasn't the instant clarification I was hoping for either. Taxonomy is described as "multi-user tagging." As I understood the explanation, it allows for a new classification of multiple author writing, or "hive-mind" as the author states, allowing writing that could not be conceived by the author alone. I think kind of covers the phenomenon when the social media Universes combine to publish the same funny cat picture the same day.
While an oversimplification, the article brings up great points to me, we are just learning what collective creation can do, and how great access to instant information alters not only our approach to writing, but a unique final product produced by technology.
A link for the curious:
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CCC/0611-sep09/CCC0611Folks.pdf
I find this fascinating in reference to writing as a whole. I like the point you made about critical word choice. In the technological world, word choice is key to keeping the attention of the reader simultaneously not having a tremendous amount of characters to use. I wonder at times, with the progress of technology, if the college paper will be reduced in size due to technology requirements. Say what you mean without all the sugar coating.
DeleteFolksonomy is an interesting word. Seems like the author may have been bored one afternoon.
N
It's true that the ability to refer immediately to the information needed when approaching writing effects the uniqueness of the product. I say this because we no longer take on the adventure and process of researching the information. Instead of obtaining a well rounded idea of any topic, we now research via internet for what we want our paper to reflect.
DeleteI think I am going to need to study the actual word folksonomy a bit more to better understand the usage myself Nick. Maybe the author was bored.
DeleteThe article I chose to read was an opinion piece by Lad Tobin from College English in 2010 and called “
ReplyDelete“Self-Disclosure as a Strategic Teaching Tool: What I Do-and Don’t- Tell My Students.” The article opened with a meeting of composition teachers discussing tactics when a younger, inexperienced teacher posed a question about whether or not she should reveal a personal story to a student who wrote an “all over the place” essay regarding the student’s own similar personal story (a mother diagnosed with breast cancer). In other words, the question posed is whether a teacher is more effective as a “professional” who keeps distant from students or a “real” person who is willing to share personal information about him or herself. In Tobin’s opinion there is value in self-disclosure, but it should be done in a strategic manner meant to enhance teaching.
Tobin uses politicians as an example, where disclosures (even controversial ones) are purposeful and chosen to elicit a desired response in the audience. He states that these disclosures can be risky, but if they help the teacher’s ability to illustrate a concept, they are useful. Tobin also compares teachers to writers based on the Rhetorical theory of writing to an audience. The main point Tobin is trying to make is that teachers should ask the following questions before a disclosure: “Will revealing this information at this point in this way to this group of students be pedagogically effective? Are the benefits likely to outweigh the risks?”
Tobin mentions the conflicting views of James Berlin and bell hooks in this subject, Berlin stating that the ideology of self-disclosure is more of an Expressionistic view rather than a cognitive Rhetorical choice, while bell hooks states: “empowerment of students cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable.” Since it is an opinion piece, Tobin freely admits to siding with bell hooks, and admits that the essay is biased. He cites several examples of the effective use of self-disclosure: writings by Thomas Newkirk, Paula Salvio, Helen Ewald and David Wallace, all who either discuss or employ self-disclosure in their writings. Tobin also makes clear that he does not support pointless self-disclosure, citing an example of a Spanish teacher who used the class period to vent (in English), presenting an unprofessional and ineffective appearance.
Tobin then lists his rules for “employing the personal:” reveal only items that will maintain productive tension in the relationship with the student/writer, reassure students (especially first year students), strive to be personally present in every pedagogical interaction (without offering explicit personal details), model essayistic thinking, model use of autobiographical material for rhetorical purpose, and give students a sense of the instructors integration and integrity. Tobin mentions that staying silent is also a form of self-disclosure, one that may give students the wrong impression, and finishes by refusing to identify best practices because every teacher and scenario is different, instead asks teachers to ask themselves “whether a particular practice might help a particular teacher become a better version of her own teaching self.”
Now that you've read the summary, here is the review:
DeleteI think this is an important idea to address as a future educator because it is one that should be considered; how much of me do I let the students see. I agree with Tobin in that keeping me completely shut away from students will keep me cold and distant, and therefore less of an effective teacher (especially to young children). One of the books I have read recently said that “the Wizard of Oz would be a lousy teacher,” because he hides behind a curtain so students wouldn’t be able to relate to him as a person, therefore wouldn’t be able to understand his instruction as effectively. My own experience has taught me this as well: the teachers I have learned the most from are the teachers who give me a little bit of themselves; I respect and relate to them and so I am more attentive and able to see their connections and make them myself. I have never had a teacher like the Spanish teacher Tobin cited, but if I did I know I wouldn’t respect them either, and if I don’t respect a teacher I don’t learn from them (my own personal morals prevent that). This means that having a set of guidelines to keep my own self-disclosures in the area between too much and too little is useful. Tobin gives this with references and examples to support his guidelines, and they are presented in a clear way which makes sense. As a future educator, I think that these guidelines are important and useful. Tobin presents them in a way that focuses on writing curriculum, but I feel these guidelines about self-disclosure can be used across all content areas as well as in teaching writing, although the Rhetorical principles behind it are best taught in writing.
HHHhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
DeleteThis can be a touchy subject. I can see the genuineness and human side of personal disclosure as long as it is relavant within the context of the classroom work. But the balance of professional and personal treads on an already thin line. I personally think it would be acceptable if a teacher disclosed something personal if it was relevant. I personally consider the professor to be the authority figure sure, but primarily just a person, similar in many ways. I do agree that this is more of an expressivist POV rather than a cognitive.
Think the problem with Tobin's line of thinking (the politician's morality) is that it assumes the teacher knows what is best for the learning of all of their students. It suggests that a teacher can know the exact effect that a personal story or disclosure will have on their students. All people learn differently. I don't think it is possible to know if a teaching strategy will be effective or ineffective until it is tried. Personally, I would air on the side of personal teaching, rather than an information-spewing-machine. I think learning come easiest when the student can form an emotional connection to the information the teacher is trying to present.
DeleteI agree with Nick and Philip...(yep, I'm jumping on the band-wagon), I think that this is a touchy subject, but I suppose that is why Tobin wrote it. Teachers don't always know what is best for their students and opening up to their students, even with strategic timing, would seem beneficial but all people do learn differently. I didn't know much about many of my teachers in high school, but even if I did know about their personal lives I would almost think that I have the "one up advantage" over my teacher. Some kids are just manipulators and they could use that emotional card over their teachers. I wonder if showing an emotional side, to evoke emotion and commonality for the students could come through teaching videos or outside stories, rather than, "when I grew up there was this time I did....blah, blah, blah...), I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer here, but as an educator I might want to utilize outside stories first rather than my own stories.
DeleteI thought one of the purposes of our education is to learn how to decipher the different learning styles so that we can know what is best for our students (at least a majority of the time, since we are human and fallible). I think that we should be able to trust our own instincts when it comes to disclosure. Of course I don't think teachers should ramble constantly about their personal lives, and I do agree that there are manipulative students that will take advantage of a teacher's sympathy, but I don't think we should disregard a teaching strategy just because we might make a mistake about it. Instead, I agree that it is something that should not be done lightly, and should be well thought out. For example, the children in my program know I am in school as well; I model homework techniques and let them know that I can empathize when they are stressed about projects and such. This is the type of beneficial reveal that I think Tobin is talking about.
DeleteI read the article "Access to Books and Time to Read versus the Common Core State Standards and Tests", by Stephen Krashen. I chose this article because the author’s argument suggested that standardized testing is detrimental to a “student’s literacy development.” Krashen dedicates his article towards “encouraging the voices of diverse populations and using reading and writing to help students find their voices as members of a democratic society.” He begins his argument by stating that students will never be able to find their voice if they do not have access to books and time to read.
ReplyDeleteKrashen’s argument is broken into three main categories: First, why access to time for reading is crucial, secondly, why students have little access to reading materials, and lastly, the recent changes to literacy due to newer educational practices.
The first category reviews reasons why access to time for reading is so crucial. There were several reasons for this topic, which included:
➢ it leads to free voluntary reading
➢ in class and out of class read-alouds and discussions of good books can lead to more reading
➢ kids will be able to read better
➢ kids will write with a more acceptable writing style
➢ larger vocabularies
➢ better control of complex grammatical constructions
➢ spelling improvements
➢ kids will know more about a variety of subjects
➢ kids will have more practical knowledge.
Krashen suggests through various sources that “there is evidence that young people like to read as much as they every have. This would include providing a relaxed environment that can sustain silent reading (SSR). Krashen’s evidence showed that students who were provided this type of environment outperformed those in “similar classes” but did not have provide SSR.
The second point of Krashen’s article discussed the possibility of why a significant number of students have little access to reading material. There were two primary reasons given. One reason was due to students, schools, and libraries being located in areas that are within poverty stricken areas. The second reason focused on direct instruction from the educators. Both of these points were strong and one could research and write on each of these factors individually, however Krashen is just highlighting the issues for his readers. He hopes to bring awareness to strong reasoning’s of why literacy tests are down in areas afflicted by poverty over those that are not. Krashen explains that one way to improve higher reading scores is to better the libraries. Students who have access to books that they are interested in have a better chance to sit down and have free reading, which will boost their vocabulary, their comprehension, their spelling, and their outlooks on their world.
(cont.)
(Cont. page 2)
ReplyDeleteThe library gives not only a student who lives in poverty access to many worlds and ideas, but to all students in all soci-economic classes.
Krashen’s second point on access to reading covered direct instruction from the educator. He focuses on the difficulty educators are faced to teach to the Common Core Standards (CCS), which does not take into account the complexity and the size that the English language entails for mastering, he states, “consider the case of vocabulary: There are simply too many words to teach and learn one at a time.” His example is supported by the struggle to properly teach this genre’s grammatical descriptions in detail, including its usage and its meaning.
The final point of Krashen’s article discusses “recent changes in language arts education are working against access to books and reading time in school and outside of school.” To clarify, the CCS that is in place requires educators to provide direct teaching, covering both writing and language. The CCS does not “tell teachers how to teach.” Because the CCS are so demanding there is little time for teachers to create a SSR environment that has proven to provide stronger literacy skills among students. The CCS are in place to test and retest students on a continuous cycle. The testing is not only demanding on the students but it is demanding on the educators. Because of the CSS, there is very little time for free reading. Another issue that Krashen points out is that the CCS testing program is expensive. Producing the tests is not were the costs lie, but it is the output of the tests. The education department wants all tests by all students to be taken online, via the internet. This means that every school in the nation that participates in the program must find the funding within the district budgets to provide enough computers that are hooked up via the Internet for testing. This issue strongly effects districts and communities within the poverty lines that are having a tough enough time running their schools daily. There are many schools within urban and rural communities that are lacking books in their libraries. Krashen suggests that the fix to this situation could be to just put the CCS funding to improvement of libraries and other vital needs within these schools, e.g.; breakfast and lunch programs and health care. He also suggests that by reducing testing will allow time for students to read books outside of texts, which will improve the child dramatically.
This article is important because it brings awareness to some fiscal issues that the educational departments wish for us to overlook. It brings awareness to the benefits of free reading, yet the lack of time that is provided. It also creates the reader to begin a realization that the CCS intentions are good, but the system is broken and it needs to be readjusted to give students more time to explore reading materials that they are interested in, which will provide the student with many benefits.
The article is useful in the fact that it evokes a bit of outrage on the educational system. There are some simple mistakes throughout the article, that I believe the author just overlooked, such as: citing Noam Chomsky and then referring to him as a her. This to me is a simple mistake, however Chomsky would not see it that way. Regardless, the article does evoke enough curiosity to want to continue researching the issue of sustained silent reading.
What I find interesting about this is the emphasis placed on giving students more time for free reading. I think that a lot of schools don't realize how important free reading is in early education. Going through elementary school we were given less and less time in each grade for free reading, filling that time with what I considered to be busy-work projects.
DeleteRight away this made me think of CSAP testing which isn't called that anymore but anyways, they no longer allow reading between tests. When I found out about this I was so frustrated because it is just another way kids are being discouraged to read. I agree with giving students more time to read for themselves will help them learn better for life. Of course, I am biased because I love to read but if I didn't have a passion for reading all my assignments would be hell to get through and I would not pursue learning anything more than is absolutely necessary, which seems to be the case for many students today especially in the younger ages.
DeleteThis is an article that I would have felt very strongly about, had I been the one to read it, because advocating the importance of free reading is one of the things I focus on as a teacher. I think that free reading is so essential to students, it is one of the things that I remember most fondly about my own education, and I know it is the reason why I am such an avid reader. When students are allowed to read for enjoyment, it allows them to find their "books," the ones that open the door to reading for them, the ones that help them fall in love with reading and falling in love with reading is the first step to literacy in my opinion; when students love reading, the will do it.
DeletePersonally I lean strongly towards free reading for the students. When given the choice on what to do with my free time it is usually free read, so I agree with you Violetfire. My thoughts with this article lie with the core standards and the restraints that educators have on even allowing free reading. This semester, I have been writing lesson plans and they are written down to the minute...with no time left for free reading in class. I think that free reading is beneficial one thousand percent and I just wish that NEA saw that.
DeleteI understand that every day seems scripted down to the last minute as a teacher, but I still feel there is time that free reading can be worked in. We used to read for 15 minutes after we came in from lunch every day, it gave us a chance to calm down from playing, digest for a minute, and settle into the afternoon while still giving time for free reading. Things like that are options, even with rigid common core standards
DeleteI read an article by Douglas Hesse called The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies. Long winded does not begin to describe it. He expends page after page to explain the differences between the teaching of composition writing and the philosophy of creative writing. His point is simply that creative and composition writing have traditionally been alien to one another. Professors of composition have largely focused on teaching the crafts of form, analysis and argument. He suggests that composition writing has dominated writing curriculum in schools and universities because of the success it can lead students to in their academic careers. It is populated by scholars, intellectuals and academic professionals, and has established doctrines and techniques. Creative writing, on the other hand, is not easily taught, mastered or salable in modern life, and it is populated by creative thinkers, entrepreneurs, and people who seek to make writing an artistic, enjoyable experience. Hesse believes that this makes creative writing difficult for the rigid, uncompromising aspects of composition writing. Hesse believes that the way it is taught today, composition studies discourage creation and imagination by focusing only on the form and the end product. Creative writers question everything, seeking to change how things are done, and composition writers wish to maintain the status quo. As such Hesse believes that the two groups are resentful of each other and have thus remained separate. Hesse gives a laundry list of anecdotes about his experiences in both camps, as a teacher of composition and also creative writing. He concludes that he thinks creative writing and composition writing can exist together and be successful with it. He briefly suggests that this could be done using newer forms of technology, such as film creation.
ReplyDeleteI think Hesse's article is important for starting conversations about combining creative and composition writing. So many courses that teach composition focus solely on an unchanging set of ideas. In some cases this formula is so rigid that the writing begins to look like math, where one idea put out of place invalidates the entire argument. Additionally, I have been in a number of "creative writing" classes that encourage imaginative writing, but leave students lost on how to go about it. Both too much structure and too much freedom can stall the writing and learning process.
I think what Hesse is driving at is ultimately useful in helping determine how to combine creative and composition writing. Though he wastes a great deal of time with anecdotes and repeating himself, he does get at the heart of why the two ideas are different. Composition writing is structure and form; though it relies on various philosophical perspectives to form analyses, it does not foster a writer's personal imagination. Encouraging students to present their own ideas alongside scholars would be one way to introduce the creative to composition. For example, giving a student an article and a scholarly analysis of that article, and then asking them to add their analysis alongside the scholar. Adding composition to the creative could be done as giving a student a piece of writing and having them mimic the style.
Forgot this:
DeleteMy article came from the College Composition and Communication journal, Volume 62 number 1: September 2010.
I chose an article from the September 2010 issue of College Composition and Communication titled “The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies" by Doug Hesse. Hesse begins his article by addressing the opposing viewpoints of the Associated Writing Programs and the Conference on College Composition and Communication: AWP emphasizes the importance of creative writing in the composition classroom, while CCCC argues that research and interpretation should be the concentration of the composition class. Creative writing carries a negative connotation and is often “seen as habitual, narrow, and interrogated” (33). He then makes his position on the issue clear: he believes creative writing should become a part of composition courses. Hesse’s argument is divided into three parts. In the first part he provides a brief history of the field of composition studies, from the beginning of the CCC when creative writing had a place, though miniscule, in the field of composition studies, to the present wherein the “field has turned away from the imaginative toward argument, civic discourse, academic genres, and rhetorical moves” (37). His main point of discussion is CCC’s disregard for creative writing as a valuable subject of writing: since the 1970’s the conference has not truly make a place for creative writing to be discussed. He states that “writers historically have viewed it somewhere between foolish and tawdry to say anything useful and broad about the status or pedagogy of creative writing” (36). In the second part of his article, Hesse considers the advantages of joining the two writing approaches. One of his reasons is “intellectual openness” (43), which allowes the two forms to understand one another and to explore and utilize each other’s techniques. The second reason is that it would be beneficial to students so that they can recognize and appreciate all forms of writing. The last reason is political. At this point he discusses the Common Core Standards and how the writers of the standards were strictly concerned with the composition studies’ form of writing. He believes that having the two fields as separate areas of study has degraded the importance of creative writing altogether, so that writing based on interpretation, persuasion, and research is the only important form of writing. The last part of Hesse’s argument addresses the relevance of creative writing in a technologically dominated society. He claims that the skills learned through creative writing are becoming necessary in a “world of blogs, wikis, podcasts, videos, and even old-fashioned Web pages” (45) because all of it becomes public, and individuals want to be valued as individual. He also asserts that “multimodality” (48) has become the form in which arguments are presented, and that that requires creativity.
ReplyDeleteImportance and Relevance
ReplyDeleteThis article caught my attention because I am a passionate creative writer. My most memorable classes and assignments made use of creative writing, which is why I feel this article is important: the classes and assignments I remember are few and far between. By the time I reached college writing had become an obligation – study your subject matter, develop a thesis, support your thesis, repeat. Paper after paper about things I didn’t really care about, in a voice that, though I knew was mine, didn’t feel like me. I wrote creatively outside of school, anything from poetry to stories to songs, and this writing did feel like me. I believe creative writing should be a part of the composition classroom because it helps the individual develop a voice that is their own, and not purely saturated in the persuasive, scientific jargon. I believe creative writing also helps the individual appreciate writing, as opposed to seeing it as an requirement for a good grade.
Hesse’s article is useful to the field of composition studies in many ways. First, he makes the reader aware of how detrimental the division of composition studies and creative writing has been, and will continue to be, for student writers. He also establishes creative writing as an essential subject in the field of writing. The most significant impact of Hesse’s article is that he introduces a new pedagogical approach to composition studies, and for that matter, creative writing. He encourages the combining of the two subjects into a single field of study in order to help writers understand, collect, and apply various writing techniques.
Sources:
Hesse, David. "The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies." College Composition and Communication. Vol. 62, No. 1. 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
*Regrettably, I did not look at other classmates’ posts before choosing my article and writing my review. It wasn’t until I went to post this that I saw that Philip had chosen this article to write on as well. However, I didn’t really have the time to read another twenty page article let alone write another review, so maybe you can benefit from seeing how Philip and I differ in why we think this article is important.
DeleteIt never fails to astound me that Scholarly articles written in a creative manner aren't given more focus. Articles like Projective Verse, and The Sentence is a Lonely Place are well written and through a creative aspect also demonstrate their argument. Academia, in the field of composition seems set on remaining separated from its more artistic siblings based on an idea of intellectual superiority.
DeleteI completely agree Jake, and it's extremely frustrating. I believe that a fundamental part of writing lies in the imagination of the writer. When the focus of English composition is restricted to academic forms of writing, I feel the writer can begin to lose their authentic writing voice as they are trying to conform to what is expected of them. Thanks for sharing the pieces of writing: they are both perfect examples of academic writing that have integrated creative writing techniques. They are sophisticated, yet they keep the readers attention with use of things like imagery. I can only hope that creative writing soon has a place in the composition class.
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly that creative writing is essential to the process of learning how to write. Creative writing is to composition as what free reading is to comprehension; it allows the writer to branch out on his or her own and experiment without the confines of structured writing. For me personally, it allowed me to develop a love of writing, which is one of the reasons why I feel like I am a successful writer-I enjoy it! I don't know if I agree that composition studies and creative writing should be kept together, however. A separation might be a good thing, if it meant that creative writing was treated as a completely separate (but equal) subject. This would help students to separate the two as well, and maybe enjoy one without the other.
DeleteWhether you meant to or not, your voice really flowed through to the reader. I knew who you were even before I read your name. When it comes writing paper after paper, I fully understand the ability to lose yourself in the mundane blend of papers that have to be written in college. It really does become an obligation so stressful that it no longer is enjoyable. During the semester I don't write outside of class based papers because I get sick of it. Hell, I don't even take the time to read a book. It's paper after paper - chapter after chapter.
DeleteI understand that each class is designed to teach students an aspect of writing that focuses in on a specialized portion of that type of writing, but you begin to despise it. If Hesse is truly onto something, than applying multiple aspects of writing to one field could encourage students to stay more focused yet expand their abilities.
While reviewing the endless possibilities of articles that could be chosen to discuss, I stumbled upon “Listening to our Elders: Working and Writing for Change.” It was edited by Samantha Blackmon, Christina Kirklighter, and Steve Parks in 2011.
ReplyDeleteA group of editors to create “a project that would encapsulate the years of advocacy and agitation that have described the works of SIGs and caucuses within the NCTE and CCCC through the last fifty years” (Blackmon, Kirklighter, Parks, 1). For those of you who don’t know what a caucus is, because I didn’t, it’s a meeting of supporters or members of a specific political party or movement. Within this archive of interview and articles there are multiple accounts of recordings on individual’s positions and policy statements that have changed our views within the English Department’s world.
The article withheld individuals such as James Hill, Jeffrey Chan, Geneva Smitherman, and Corlota Cardenas Dwyer. Each paragraph depicting the party of which the individual was affiliated with and what their movement was all about.
Discussions were all over the board, but of course it would be since there has always been battles over what is appropriate to discuss with the written word. Think about how big of a deal it was for Mark Twain to write about slavery and the truths behind our world’s actions during that time period. This article took note of time like that (aka: Black rights/movements and Black English (BE) that was not embraced. There was also bases touched on Asian American Experiences, “Racist Love”, Chicano Literature, class culture, gay rights, and many other culturally sensitive topics.
“Neutral Writing” is also discussed because so many individuals refused to take a side to any sort of movement. Everything has had some form of controversy but there are always those people in the world that choose to brush it under the rug. Knowing those people exist, the opposing sides have a higher mountain to climb since there are those who prefer to ‘hush’ the truth.
There were times where the individuals’ agitation or fondness came out for a topic; however, it was never really elaborated on since this article was merely a reflection of the fact that this archive exists. It only allows the reader a taste of what exists in the instance that they were to choose to research it themselves. The article was informative along the line of these topics and this archive existing but never chose to go into much detail about what was in the it. For example James Hill supposedly discussed African American progression and the Black Caucus. So by the time you finish the article, it’s like…neat. Next. This honestly sucks too, because editors amp the reader up for all these “historical accounts of activism” (Blackmon, Kirklighter, Parks, 3) and then leave you with a brief over view.
Knowing that sensitive topics have always been an issue in discussions and the written word, do you think things have changed for our culture today? Are there still things that we try to hush to avoid revealing the truth and our history? By keeping things quiet, do we end up revealing that we’re wrong in what we’ve done in our past? What are some topics that could potentially become a culturally sensitive topic in our future?
This post causes me to think back to our class discussion on queer theory and the relevance of an authors sexual orientation in his or her writing. The conversation was uncomfortable for me as I'm sure it was for many in the class simply because the topic of GLBT in modern American society is still taboo and attempts to change this mindset, while it has made progress in the recent past, is still met by a strong opposition from many people who are either ignorant, narrow minded, or afraid to stand up and say anything controversial (this would be the "neutral writing" the author spoke of). I include fear as part of the opposition because you have to account for the fact that many GLBT people are very reserved about revealing their sexuality both in their writing and spoken word. In our class discussion, Nick revealed to us that he was homosexual (which by the way was extremely brave and I applaud him for being able to share that with us), he followed up his statement by saying that he wasn't comfortable with the discussion as a whole and that he would rather just not talk about it. This merely exemplifies my previous statement and I'm sure that many GLBT people share Nick's mindset. I don't believe remaining neutral or quiet about such topics reveals a mistake or "wrong" that we've commited in our past, it simply gives you an idea of the situation that puts the mindset of our culture into context.
Delete"Breaking Into the Movies: Pedagogy and the Politics of Film" by Henry Giroux is an interesting article in which the author makes an argument for the importance of film in the the world of academia. Giroux says that film is a much more effective medium for teaching than what is offered in standard textbooks because it is viewed and analyzed in a group setting which enriches the conversation and critical pedagogy as a whole. He calls for the use of film in academic settings as a pedagogical tool by stating, "Film does more than entertain; it offers up subject positions, mobilizes desires, influences us unconsciously, and helps to construct the landscape of American culture." Giroux elaborates on the effectiveness of film as an academic tool saying that because it has two purposes, to educate and to entertain, the latter aspect serves as a catalyst to the education process by seducing the audience with dramatics and spectacle.
ReplyDeleteOnce you can learn to think about and analyze film through what Giroux calls a "critical pedagogical" perspective you can then begin to see how film influences different aspects of society, culture and politics. Elaborating on this he states, "Unlike ordinary consumer items, film produces images, ideas, and ideologies that shape both individual and national identities." Giroux argues that film is a powerful form of communication and can influence the ways in which we address different ideologies and that it helps shape our understanding of different philosophical perspectives as a whole; "As the opportunities for civic education and public engagement begin to disappear, film may provide one of the few media left that enables conversations that connect politics, personal experiences, and public life to larger social issues".
I found Giroux's article very dense and challenging to read through however I feel that once I began to understand what Giroux was getting at I must say I tend to agree with him. From an early age film has been had a profound impact on my life, as I'm sure it has been for many of you. Think to when you were little one of the first ways in which you absorbed academic material was through shows like Sesame Street. Also you were probably were exposed to a multitude of animated films which, though you weren't conscious of it, served to shape your sense of morality and ideology. Giroux's article is important because it engages the reader to become conscious of this profound effect that film has on our general view of the world around us.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the effectiveness of film in an educational setting as well as whether or not you agree with the statement that film has a substantial impact on the way we view the world around us. Also see the link below to reference Giroux's article
http://www.jaconlinejournal.com/archives/vol21.3/giroux-breaking.pdf
I agree that film is an important aide to education, similar to drama and visual art. However, do we need to find a balance between visual aides for teaching and more standard methods? If so, how do we go about finding that balance?
DeleteI don't know that I can agree with the premise that movies are necessarily superior to books or writing as a teaching tool, but it is an interesting argument. I do think we have only scratched the surface of the audio/visual components (movies, TV, film, internet) tools for teaching and rhetorical presentations.
DeleteGrioux's argument seems to rely on the assumption that all films have an equal quality message. this might be true if the world of cinema were populated by Fellini's but it is increasingly being over run by Michael Bay's and M. Night's
DeleteI doubt any amount of pedagogical analysis could make some movies worth while.
I agree with @Natalie Stevens that a balance must be struck between standard methods and new age teaching strategies. I believe Giroux intends mostly to use film as a supplemental tool to catalyze conversation that can begin to help students understand and analyze rhetorical and pedagogical concepts. He does not intend to use film as the primary method for teaching the actual theories of composition. Also @Jake I agree that many films nowadays have little, if any, academic value and that it is difficult to sort through the multitude of purely entertaining works in order to find ones that are relevant to a classroom setting, however, once you find a relevant film it's usefulness and contribution to a discussion on composition theory, when addressed in the right context by the teacher, can be invaluable.
DeleteSorry for the lateness. I couldn't figure out how to post. I tried emailing to figure out but I don't think it sent. Anyways, hopefully this time around will do it.
ReplyDeleteI read "Review Essay: Managing the Subject of Composition Studies" by Christine Farris in the College Composition and Communication, Vol. 65, No. 1. It starts out with the author recalling a discussion of what, if anything needed to be changed about student writing; also commenting on the difficulty of it while many try to think about new routes to go about it. Referencing a essay, "Postcomposition", written by Sidney I. Dobrin, it seems Dobrin believes that instead of subject based writing, such as writing alongside literary analysis, history essays, philosophy essay, so on and so forth, teaching of writing should be focused on the writing itself. Or that's how I understood it anyways. The author of the piece seems to disagree with Dobrin at multiple points he makes, saying that, "awareness of that complexity should figure into how writing is taught by who- ever is going to teach it." (Farris 3). "Dobrin, though, maintains that contending with “the complex systems in which the posthuman is located, endlessly bound in the fluidity and shiftiness of writing,” requires a radical shift from “the individual as producer/originator of writing” (72–73) that now informs composition studies constrained by pedagogy." (Farris 3). The author holds to the idea that teaching writing alongside subjects is one change that is not needed in teaching students how to write, saying that the parts instructors bring to the process of teaching writing are varied and necessary as one point in her argument.
Importance: it seems important simply in the aspect of it bringing up the idea of what needs to change and what needs to stay the same in the teaching of writing. While I felt that Dobrin had some points to his argument, it certainly seems necessary to have writing for subjects other than simply writing. It helps knowing how to adjust as a writer for a broad discourse. It goes along with the idea in class about writing for a discourse and writing in their language as well. Writing for subjects for something other than to learn how to write can give a writer practice for the times they'll have to try and enter into other discourses as well as learn their discourse language.
Usefulness: What makes the article important seemed to be two points. One is to think carefully on what should change in teaching writing and what shouldn't. At times, a person maybe trying to get rid of something that helps students grow as writers. The second point actually came from Dobrin. While we usually did literary analyses and essays, I don't remember being taught writing simply for the sake of writing in English. Reading Dobrin made me think of this point which feels like there should be some writing for writing, especially since it's an English class.
I would agree that teaching writing without a purpose or subject is like trying to teach someone how to drive without including the rules-of-the-road. However, I think teaching writing by itself is crucial in introductions education. Children (1st and 2nd grades mostly) need to be taught the basics of writing before we can hope to get them to think and write analytically. Do we place a little too much emphasis on analysis and critical thought in higher education? Yes I think we do, but it is the next logical step when developing writing skills: First we learn how to write; then we learn why to write.
DeleteBased on your summary, I am very intrigued by the article you chose. Thinking back I find that the majority of English classes I have taken require students' writing to develop an argument and to support that argument, or to analyze a literary work. However, it seems almost impossible to teach writing, to help writers' develop skills that are beyond basic elementary, without providing them with a subject to focus on. Writing for the sake of writing may be useful in some instances, such as creative writing, however, seems to me a solely expressive approach. I also believe it would be very limited, never allowing the writer to experiment or learn anything beyond what they already know.
Delete