Blog: Current
Issues Review
What
we know about writing we first learn from our teachers in school. Yet as we’ve seen with the holdover of
current-traditional rhetoric in classrooms well beyond its acceptance among
scholars of writing, what we’re taught is often outdated ideas about the art of
writing. Thus to understand current
issues in writing, we need to look at the conversations taking place among
scholars in academic journals and consider how these new conversations will
ultimately affect our understanding of writing itself.
Therefore,
for this assignment, you are asked to select one article from one current issue
of a composition studies journal to summarize and review for its contributions
to the study of writing. The assignment
requires the following:
- Choose one of the journals
listed below
- Select an article from a
recent issue of that journal
- Read and summarize the
article’s main argument(s)
- Argue why this article is
important
- Explain how this
conversation is useful
You
should draw on the language and concepts about the different approaches to
writing we’ve covered so far.
Journals in Composition Studies: College
Composition and Communication, College
English, Composition Studies, Computers and Composition, JAC:
A Journal of Composition Theory
NOTE: Most of the journals are available through
online databases at the Auraria Library website.
Post a response: April 25th
Respond to other posts: May 2nd
Length: There is no page length, but sometimes it will not allow long extended post, so, if you have issues, you may have to enter two separate posts.
MLA
Format/Documentation
Remembering Composition (The Book): A DVD Production by Bump Halbritter and Todd Taylor
ReplyDeleteIn this article it was pretty unclear about what it was talking about until you got to the end. They stated that they were rhetoricians and therefore they stress the importance of audience. They then went to say that English conferences are pretty much super boring and they wanted to do something awesome.
Their topic- new media. They wanted to do the presentations at the conference differently and after getting some licenses, approval and funding they went to work. The directors of this conference got musicians, movies and computers. Toping it off with different seating arrangements for the herd of scholars, teachers, artists and actors. Oh, and they also got a huge light show. Which is pretty cool if you ask me.
Apparently it was really expensive to get into this conference, which makes since because of the huge effort they put and many, many dollars. They wan't to give the best performance possible. After the conference was over people were reported to ask what's next. This stumped them so they decided to make a DVD from it.
The DVD was a recreation that took over three years to make. It took so long because they had to get mass amounts of permission from the national and independent artists, directors of the video's that were featured, the people being interviewed, the music, and images.
After receiving permission from literally everybody they had to Copyright the DVD. Halbritter and Tayolr said it cost a grand for every ten seconds. This is when I started understanding their purpose of the article. They wanted people to know what goes into visual rhetoric verse literary rhetoric. They were expressing the long process of creating such a thing. It makes since why you don't see it as much as you would think considering the technology that is available.
My question is, what about that is right? Why should it be so expensive to try more unconventional means of rhetoric?
Halbritter, Bump, and Todd Taylor. "Remembering Composition (The Book): A DVD Production." JAC: A Journal of Rhetoric, Culture and Politics 26 (): 398-396. Print.
I have never been to a conference yet, so I can't truly comment on the fact that they are boring or not but that is one of the reasons I have never gone. I always think why would I go sit done for multiple hours for mostly boring presentations. This is the thing that is wrong with such conferences, why not spice it up and make it fun for students, professors, or professionals and make it fun for them to go. The information that is given throughout these conferences may be important information but its not being completely received by the audience because its not presented in a fun, exciting and entertaining way.- Dallas
DeleteFrom a pure rhetorician standpoint, viewing from an audience they believe are bored, making it as entertaining as possible would be a viable option. If a wider audience was reached and receptive to the information then the cost may be viewed as worth it. If on the other hand it was strictly for entertainment and none of the real points were conveyed, just a circus with only entertainment value, than im sure it is not worth it.
DeleteFirst of all, I'm sorry this is posted today. I was scrolling through and didn't find my original response from last Friday. My response to this is strictly based on information I've learned and interpreted from other people. I'm not a rhetorician at all, but definitely want to become better at it. From my perspective, the newer generations are much more in-tune with technology than they are with literature. If trying to persuade someone requires new adaptations in order to one's your point across (such as this blog for example), then I don't see the harm in it. I think the cost mentioned in this article is outrageous, but will hopefully experience a decrease once it becomes more of a commonality.
DeleteThe article I read was about a professor that worked at Cincinnati University whose life was completely changed when she was diagnosed with MS. The disease impacted her harshly and quickly and the deficits she experienced worsened immensely over the course of her first year with the diagnosis. Her illness and the deficits she experienced due to her disease caused her to revise her long held beliefs and habitual ways of functioning as a writer. MS forced her to revise the physical practice of writing, the value she placed on certain types of writing, and her ideas about the very purpose of writing. Prior to her disease, Gibson believed that the writing process not only involved her mind, but also her arms and hands. However, the disease caused Gibson to lose the function of her arms and now her writing process only involves her voice and a computer. The computer she uses utilizes a voice recognition program that keeps track of the writers commonly used words and phrases and easily recognizes the speaker’s voice. Gibson’s use of the program caused her to realize how difficult it had been all of her life to transfer thinking from mind, through body, and then onto paper. The elimination of the middle man makes her wish she had had the voice recognition program all of her life because it allows her voice to connect to the writing without her body interfering stating: “With this program what’s on your brain goes directly on the page and it’s liberating” (13). All in all, her disability changed the entire physical process of writing and made her realize that her body was actually a hindrance to her writing.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the physical changes caused by the disease her ideas about what constituted quality writing also changed. Prior to her diagnosis Gibson viewed blogs as vain and narcissistic. Gibson believed that anyone could blog and therefore blogs lacked substance and were often poorly written. However, after her disease blogging became her primary from of writing. Gibson’s disability caused her to value blogging because it enabled her to view it as a primary intellectual and creative outlet, as well as a means for her to “contribute” to the world despite her isolation and disability. Moreover, blogging allowed her to become part of a community that sustained her socially because her disease left her trapped at home a majority of the time and her social life non-existent.
I found this article to be important because it made me question my own writing process. Would my writing be enhanced if my body did not interfere? In addition, in this class we have discussed the process of editing and how many of us delete entire sentences whenever we see red on the screen. This disrupts the entire writing process and can interrupt ideas and thoughts. Therefore, I have to wonder what would happen to my writing if I never had to go back and edit spelling and grammar mistakes and could just write. These ideas are also useful conversation to the writing world because it forces the writing community to question the writing process and whether or not our bodies interfere with our writing. Another interesting element to this article was that she started the article by discussing her time spent teaching and how she was known as the “revision hag” by her students and colleagues. This term is how she approached everything she experienced; she had to revise her physical writing process, she revised the way she judged and valued types of writing, and she revised the ideas she had about the purpose of writing. Moreover, to end her article she revisits the whole notion of the “revision hag” and ties it into life stating; “As I contemplate the changes in my life and consider the revisions I must make in order to continue functioning in ways that are somewhat fulfilling to me, I remember with renewed compassion students who responded with horror to my suggestions that they revise their theses or the format of their essays. I understand like never before the revision hag’s command to revise, revise, revise, sometimes represents not only the reconsideration of a piece of writing, but also the ways of seeing and living in the world. Untimely, this article is both important and useful to the conversation because it discusses the writing process, revision, both in life and in writing, blogging, approaches to writing, writing in the classroom, the effects a disability can have on a writer and their writing, and the importance of belonging to a writing community.
ReplyDeleteGibson, Michelle. Revising a (Writer’s) Life: Writing with Disability. Composition Studies.
I would have liked to find this article. As an aspiring Special Needs Educator, I have learned that there are many ways to read, write and communicate. Many times students that have physical disabilities or who are non verbal have a hard time expressing what they want to say. They are often over looked and not valued as writers. I think that too many times people are stuck with traditional views of teaching, and it makes it hard for them to think outside of the box. In my teaching classes we talk about alternative accommodations all the time. This leads me to ask the question, why general educators aren't taught to think this way? As you mentioned and as we have talked about in class there seems to be too much focus on grammatical errors and the ever present red marks. However sometimes this enables the reader to extract the content and meaning out of the writing. I am a huge advocate to learning and expressing your ideas by any means possible, and just because a disability might prohibit you from preforming the physical act of writing, it doesn't mean that you don't have anything to say. Think about the way you write and how much time is wasted on hitting the backspace button. If you were able to transfer your thought and alleviate the physical step, people may be encouraged to share their ideas more.
DeleteI completely agree with you! I think one of the issues is teachers are not taught or explained the best methods to teach students with disabilities and this causes them to possess a lack of comfort with the topic and a fear. Worse, this lack of knowledge and comfort often causes them to ignore the problem and pretend like it’s not an issue. I know that at Metro I only had to take one class on exceptional learners and that class only covered how I would handle certain situations. There was never any instruction or discussion on how to effectively teach writing and the writing process to students with disabilities. I think if educators had more exposure to instructional strategies for learners with disabilities the issues would be addressed more often.
DeleteGreat article. I know I get distracted by my body... and the internet. I don't find writing with Dragon helpful personally, but sometimes I have to put my computer away and jut write with a notebook and a pen. It doesn't take out every aspect of the physical world but it cleans things up for me. And I don't get distracted by red, blue, or green squigglies... Revision is a vital part of writing and life, but it really needs to be kept in its proper place.
DeleteOn “Forging Rhetorical Subjects: Problem-Based Learning in the Writing Classroom” By Paula Rosinski and Tim Peeples
ReplyDeleteA Review By Isaac Furtney
In this article from the Fall 2012 edition of the journal Composition Studies, the author/professors are most interested in using “highly engaged” pedagogical structures to improve students’ writing by improving their understanding of it as a rhetorical act. They argue that the use of these engaged pedagogy strategies; such as problem-, client-, service-, and project-based learning assignments; has the capacity to help students better understand the rhetorical nature of writing by making the students deal with “ill-structured” problems that do not yield single, correct solutions. They see the goals of this endeavor as allowing the students to
(a) have more experience making a wide range of situated rhetorical choices,(b) have a better sense of writing as contextualized praxis that is mutually constitutive of writers, readers, texts, and contexts, and (c)know to expect, understand, and value the collaborative, messy nature of non-routine writing (Peeples & Roskinski 3).
They state that using engaged pedagogy makes the students “wrestle with writing as a socially contextualized, dynamic, contested, ideological, meaning-making, iterative, messy process” (5). Often in the article, the authors refer to the students as, or equate them to, rhetorical subjects.
The authors proceed to recount problem-based learning assignments, PBLs, that they used in a first-year college writing course and other PBLs that they used in a professional writing course, and how the students dealt with them and what the learning outcomes were. The professors modified their goals for the professional writing course students to be to
(a) develop their own clear definition of the field and themselves as writing and rhetoric experts within it and (b) understand their role and the role of writing and rhetoric in the shaping of the worlds in which they participate (13).
The stated purpose of this pedagogy is to increase the students’ awareness to the power of context within which they are writing and modify their method of arriving at a conclusion, as well as the definitiveness of the conclusion itself.
The authors support writers using a praxical approach to knowledge, and the authors quote a definition of praxis given by their colleagues Patricia A. Sullivan and James E. Porter,
a kind of thinking that does not start with theoretical knowledge or abstract models, which are then applied to situations, but that begins with immersion in local situations, and then uses epistemic theory as heuristic rather than as explanatory or determining (17).
The experiential formation of knowledge using collaboration and investigation and the packaging of this knowledge for a given “context” discussed in the article is consistent with a Positivist epistemology wrapped in New Rhetorical considerations for the audience’s use for this knowledge.
This article is important not only as a pedagogical meditation, but also because it offers some interesting ideas on how writers can think about writing. It calls writing situations problematic, messy, and unique and encourages writers not to avoid the confusion in creating meaning, but to embrace it. This thought reminded me of Berthoff’s “Learning the Uses of Chaos.” The article also made me think about the difference between epistemology and meaning creation, and the fact that the meaning created and the knowledge presented should be tailored to the writer’s desired audience. I think that the method of asking an “open-ended” question or addressing a “well crafted, but ill-structured” problem is useful for a writer to think about when determining the rhetorical goal of their piece. And also that if one arrives at their conclusion based on established “theoretical knowledge and abstract models,” they probably aren’t going to have any ideas worth writing.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a writer knowing exactly what they plan to address and planning to write exactly what they believe about that subject is a bad place to start. That is not to say that a writer should not admit their personal beliefs and ideas surrounding a writing subject—for the purpose of recognizing their biases as a rhetorical subject—but that this acknowledgement should be used to allow the writer to open their mind on the subject, and create original meaning about it.
Peeples, Tim and Rosinski, Paula. "Forging Rhetorical Subjects: Problem-Based Learning In The Writing Classroom." Composition Studies 40.2 (2012): 9-33. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Curse you blogspot! You destroyed my formatting!
DeleteCurse blogspots and formatting. My italics gone, my links not hyper. Technology apparently doesn't care about MLA format or traditional formats in general...oye!
DeleteIt sounds like your article was kind of confusing. Not to you because you sound like you know exactly what you are talking about but I'm a little lost in the sauce. I think the idea of "ill structured" problems is an interesting one in that there is no one correct answer. I don't really think there are a whole lot of single correct answers when it comes to life so why should there be one when it comes to expressing yourself or making meaning through writing? It sounds like you had an interesting article.
DeleteI also like the idea that planning exactly what you are going to write is a bad place to start. That is mainly because I am trying the new rhetorician approach in a paper that I am writing at the moment and it brings me a bit of encouragement. Nice summary.
This article seems to be a daunting exercise but I can see how the author emphasizes embracing problematic, messy and confusing situations to create meaning. I agree that planning to write about a subject is a not a good place to start because it prevents further exploration of a subject that we might think we know something about. Having a sense of direction surely helps when writing but it seems to me that this notion of using a certain direction is always encountering obstacles and challenges that ultimately result in meaning creation. I personally like using a rhetoric approach because it offers the opportunity for others to engage in the creation of meaning that is inevitably subjected to the socio-cultural and space-time environment we live in. Good article though.
DeleteI get the idea of not over planning, but to throw away planning completely seems a bit dangerous. This all, of course, is based on my own personal writing habits. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan (and practicer) of procrastination and "the essential delay", but I consider the time these blessings allow me to think about what I am going to write as my planning stage. An outline or list is not everyone's cup of tea, but I believe we all plan out our writing before the pen meets paper in one way or another.
Delete“The Stranger” in Communication: Race, Class and Conflict in a Basic Writing Class by Xin Liu Gale
ReplyDeleteIn the article, Dr. Xin Liu Gale talks about the implications of race and class, and the conflicts these two aspects generated while she taught a ‘Composition Fundamentals’ freshman college class. The main point Dr. Gale addresses is the realization that, while teaching a freshman composition class at college, race and class conflicts sprouted among her students, not because of prejudices and/or racial tensions, but because the structure of the academic system is designed to sustain the interests of the dominant group (whites), while at the sate time, it alienates the subordinated groups (blacks) in order to maintain a societal hierarchy. Dr. Gale states that, from the beginning of the semester, some of her African-American students were very defiant of her teaching methods and her ethnicity (being a Chinese woman teaching English). By the seventh class, tensions rose to the point that six of the African American students clashed in a heated argument with three of the white students about her methodology. Because of this conflict, she eventually realized that, even though her pedagogic methods were driven by a positive attitude to help people become academics and function within society, she was also being part of the same hierarchy that benefited some and oppressed others.
Dr. Gale notes that her position as a hierarchal advocate, as well as a stranger to the African American students, became the basis for discontent and conflict within the classroom. This discontent, she argues, has deep imbedded roots in the chronologically racist society of the United States, the levels of class and hierarchy institutions have created, and how these discrepancies are maintained in higher education. Dr. Gale refers to this hierarchical-maintenance as “symbolic imposition,” or cultural arbitrariness, which purpose is to conserve and reproduce the same knowledge that legitimatizes the dominant class(es). Her strangeness, embedded in knowledge power, became the basis of discontent for her African American students who have been long disenfranchised within society, and who have suffered incessant assaults on black intelligence, beauty, character and possibility.
Because of these realities, Dr. Gale realized that she needed to become more than just a figure of authority in the classroom. She recognized that the reason some of her students did not recognize the power of literacy was because there are differences in culture, race, class and power relations. Conflict that spawned from race and class within the classroom led Dr. Gale the change her pedagogical methods to accommodate these differences and improve communication. The composition fundamentals professor concludes that her personal and pedagogical transformation is not a landmark for improving communication in the classroom, nor is it a proven method for solving racial or class issues in society, but rather a personal account about conflict, a realization of the structural forces that influence and shape our lives, and a reformation of methodology that ultimately impacted her students positively.
I think this article is important because it exposes an issue that has substantial implications in academia and society, but which is a lot of times ignored, argued as a thing of the past, uncomfortable for some, or even meaningless to others: race. By engaging in ‘racial discourse’ in the classroom we can, at least, recognize the significance and implications this social issue has on some groups and society itself. Dr. Gale recognized the importance of acknowledgment of differences within the classroom, but more importantly, the structuralism-driven institutions that create social classes, and that benefit the dominant group(s) and oppress subordinated ones. Even though race is a social construction, it has provided a basis for conflict, domination, control, and power in many cultures, societies and nations around the world. Race is not an issue that only pertains to the oppressed, but also the oppressor; not only because of its relative authoritarian position to it, but because it decays the mind’s ability to see difference as an agent of opportunity and advancement, and it degrades the human being for its natural acquired identity. Race discourse is necessary, especially in academia, because this is the place where we can challenge ideology and find alternatives for human advancement in all its ambits. The simple recognition of differences among individuals offers a way to strengthen communication because it allows for people’s rights to be recognized, cherished, respected, and thus creates a reciprocal cycle of liberty among all individuals.
ReplyDeleteI agree. A lot of times I think teachers are afraid engage in "racial discourse". This could be because they lack the knowledge about specific races, and are not comfortable talking about it. Especially in today's classrooms that are so much more diverse than ever before these issues need to be challenged and talked about. Like you said this allows for peoples rights to be recognized, cherished, and respected. I think once this discourse becomes a norm in the classroom, all individuals will begin to feel more comfortable in expressing their ideas without fear of being ridiculed because of their race. This can only aid in the expansion of ideas that span across different races. You never know we might all be more like each other that we think.
DeleteI think it is more obvious that teachers ignore race issues because of the offense level. It's like talking about religion, sexual orientation, or politics; they are all easily offensive topics. I also think a lot about my first aid and CPR certification because I don't plan on using them due to the risk of people suing. Think about the lady who sued over McDonalds' hot coffee. What is obvious to some is a reason to get teachers fired. People are generally unreasonable and easily offended. Teachers are easy to attack and ridicule. So many parents of students are ready to point the finger.
DeleteI do not think there is anything offensive when it comes to talking about race. It exists and we see it every day. In order to embrace diversities and differences it needs to become part of our normal discourse and authors of all ethnic backgrounds need to be included in the curriculum. This will not only expand students' horizons, but also give them insight and appreciation to new cultures. This is a very diverse country and disusing race fosters an open mind and establishes a safe environment were students will feel more at ease to share their true thoughts and take risks with their writing.
DeleteClassrooms are a perfect place to talk openly about race, class, discrimination, stereotypes, ignorance, and hate in the hopes of some cathartic discourse. unfortunately it needs to be in a completely safe and nourishing environment which is a difficult art to provide.
DeleteOn other comments: it can be offensive for people to talk about class and race, many people dont want to hear the "why cant we just get along" from someone who does not experience discrimination on a daily basis and has only an inkling of the empathy it would take to overcome societal constructs...it means long negotiations and painful change\exchange.
“Emerging Voices: Unpredictable encounters: Religious Discourse, Sexuality, and The Free Exercise of Rhetoric” By T.J. Geiger 11
ReplyDeleteThis article stems from a conversation that professor Geiger over heard from a student of Syracuse University. The conversation was between two students discussing their dislike with having to discuss and view arguments made by the LGBT community in their First-year writing course. Although students and/or teachers may not like to discuss issues or arguments pertaining to the communities of LGBT, gender, sexuality, race or religion whether it’s because people are uncomfortable to talk about or professors to select or find pieces that relate to these communities. The article then goes on to say that it’s not enough to use these types of community arguments to inform students but to open their views and ideas of other communities. Geiger’s aim is to “create space for students to voice their personal attachments and to examine the broader discourses” (255). This is done through free exercise of rhetoric which is where he works with students to “enhance their rhetorical practice through a process that can involve encountering multiple uncommon or unexpected arguments, acknowledging the value of misreading, and embracing uncertainty.
The answers to why this article is important and how it is useful to the conversation are one in the same, this way of looking at communities that are not only differ from your own but may contradict from your own beliefs. In discussing communities that differ from your own, you are able then to open your mind to the views and ideas of that of a particular community. The ability to open up your mind allows you to understand the different stance of communities that differ from your own, which allows you to better identify with others or ideas. This is not meant to try to change a student’s particular view or stance but to understand the other views that differ from their own. This is important aspect to the conversation for writers because of the New Rhetoricians and how writers should write to a specific audience or community whether as an insider or outsider. To write to a specific community, a writer must understand and identify with different views in order to write with in them.
Geiger, T.J. "Emerging Voices: Unpredictable Encounters: Religious Discourse,
Sexuality, and The Free Exercise of Rhetoric." College English 75.3 (2013):
248-29. Print.
I like where Geiger is going with this. I don't necessarily feel uncomfortable talking about stuff like this with, well anybody really but I know people that do. A lot actually. But even looking at it from my point of view, I'm not shy about LGBT because I have a lot of friends who are apart of that community but every time I hang out with them I'm sure to learn something new. If people don't open up their mind enough to even hear what other people are saying then I see that as closed minded and if they are close minded how good is their writing really? How far can they really progress and develop in their lives? I think talking about topics such as this and many more are a good idea. Especially since people going to college are borderline, if not all the way, grown ass adults. Grow up people. Good job Dallas.
DeleteProfessor Geiger's approach to delaying with sensitive issues like LGBT, race, sexuality, religion, etc. seems like a good approach for exposing this issues in huge classroom. A lot of times us as students shy away from these issues because of our inability to connect with others who are not considered part of our social group. Creating open discourse communities and free exercises that augment our interaction with unfamiliar groups or issues certainly can help break barriers between these groups and expose us to the different perceptions and views that we dismiss without we even listening. I think that it is significant for us as a community to face the same challenges that prevent us from acquiring the essence of what is to be called a community because, like Dallas said, it allows you to better identify with others and their ideas. Good article man!
DeleteI completely agree with you both and the general idea of the article that I read. If we as students or people in general don't open our minds to different communities how can you write effective as Rachael said close minded. If we dismiss without listening, we will never be able to fully understand the community were writing about and/or within.- Dallas
DeleteI agree with what has been said about this so far - Geiger having a good approach to broaden people's minds, and in turn, getting them to be better writer's. This particular article stood out to me because I have to present in my other English class, on Monday, on the word "gay". I'll admit that a part of me feels uncomfortable since I don't know everyone's stance on the subject, but at the same time, I see it as an opportunity to bring the other students' perspective into the conversation. That can certainly teach people how to be better rhetoricians. Good choice on this article Dallas.
DeleteWith the conservative Christian background I was raised in anything pertaining to religious discourse perks my interest. I think that it is extremely important to encourage students to approach communities outside of their own with open minds though I'm not sure I agree that this responsibility should fall on the shoulders of First Year Composition instructors. Instead, students should be taught to be accepting and understanding of those different than them long before they step foot on a college campus.
Delete“Nah, We Straight”: An Argument Against Code Switching By Vershawn Ashanti Young, JAC, Vol. 29, No. 1/2 (2009), pp. 49-76
ReplyDeleteVershawn Ashanti Young’s article begins with the claim that President Barack Obama’s “swagger, growing affinity for Hip-Hop, and especially his public use of African American English,” has awarded him with the same amount of attention as he has received for being America’s first African American president. The title of the article “Nah, we straight,” is evidently taken from an exchange between President Obama and a waitress after she asked if he needed change. Young uses this example to represent her primary argument against code switching. She defines code switching as the use of more than one language, or language variety, concurrently within a conversation. She is disturbed by the prevailing definition of code switching that language promoters and educators use, which advocates language substitution. Rather than promoting two language varieties in one speech act, or the practice of language blending, it “characterizes the teaching of language conversion,” Young states. These educators are promoting the transition from one language variation to a different one, meanwhile Young believes a better alternative is to teach “code meshing: blending dos idiomas or copping enough standard English to really make yo' AAE be Da Bomb.”
Young states that code switching is all about race and spends Part I of her article defending her claim. She believes that the literary world experiences racism due to the practice of double consciousness, which is presented all of the time in the education world. An example of double consciousness in the classroom is when a teacher allows black students to speak within their identity but will not allow them to write in it. An interesting point that Young makes is that if Standard English practices, as linguists propose, are derived from the speech patterns of middle- and upper-class whites, why should students who speak Black English be required to switch to that standard when at the same time it forces them to acknowledge that Standard English is held as superior? This is not equality, she states. Supporting linguistic segregation is fundamentally at odds with eliminating racism within the classroom and code switching supports linguistic segregation, though utilizing code meshing can save us from this problem, young states.
Part II of her article goes on to promote code meshing. Code meshing encourages speakers and writers to fuse standard principals of communication with their native speech habits. Rather than teaching Standard English grammar, Young believes instructors should teach how the semantics and rhetoric of African American English can be combined with Standard English. Young concludes with an additional thought on President Obama, stating that should he have used code meshing rather than code switching it would have been “the game to end all games,” when it comes to breaking down the walls of linguistic segregation.
ReplyDeleteThis article is important because as our classrooms seek to present an environment of equality, considerations must be made for the various forms of native speech that many students present. The ethos surrounding the strict enforcement of Standard English grammar is certainly questionable yet an abandonment of all grammatical structure seems problematic as well. Some sort of balance between the two would seem to be the best solution although teaching standard grammar will continue to be the easier and more attractive avenue for educators until a code meshing grammatical system standard across the nation is introduced. Personally I find written works that include code meshing to be far more interesting than where the authors voice is absent, yet glimpses of the authors voice within academic articles are rare. Even this article whose main focus is on the need to allow students to display their native voices within their schoolwork allows little of the authors voice to show. I believe there should be more space allowed within scholarly writing for an author to represent his or her voice.
I would have to agree, I like reading articles that show the authors voice. It makes it easier to connect with the reading. Just like the articles we read in class, the ones that I connected, and enjoyed were the ones that had this. I do think there is a time and place to include this, you wouldn't want a psychologist writing something like "Yo that dude is cra cra" But it would be nice if anyone could pick up a piece of writing and be able to connect and understand it. I think as time goes on we will see more and more scholarly space that will allow this. Just like the book Dr. Rivas showed us that the is using in his Freshman Comp. class. Writers seem to be straying away from the traditional ways of writing. However I think you will still see style shifting because it does separate the way you convey information and whom you convey it to. In my opinion write in a manner that is appropriate to who and what you are writing.
DeleteWhat a great topic. Her claim that code-switching is being used to teach language conversion surprised me because my only experience with the term is from linguistic courses being defined the way she initially defines it, confined to verbal communication, and without negative connotation. I might have to go read this article because, although what she is saying intrigues me, I don't see how this code meshing could be accepted in academic discourse. I'm not convinced that teaching "standard" academic English is harmful, as a matter of fact I think exposure to it empowers people to engage in discourse in that community. "Black English" is not, after all, the only other version of English, Southern Dialect English and Chicano English are a few others that have their own rules and are generally not accepted for use in the classroom. The bottom line is that this "standard" academic English is the version of English used in the discourse of scholars. I really do not see this as an equality issue, as a matter of fact to deprive students of an opportunity to appropriate this language just because they aren't comfortable with it (and who really is, including white students) could disadvantage their confidence if they decide they do want to write to this community. That said, I think writing in your own language is very important and expressive on an entirely different level. To ask students to write in this language, for an assignment or two, could be good too. However, the author's point about encouraging student writers to mix different languages or dialects is probably not necessary to make, owners of multiple dialects already intuitively do this on their own, and would do so if asked to write in their own language. It would be interesting to see some studies on written code-switching. Overall, I think this topic is exciting because perhaps standard English could be redefined some day.
DeletePerhaps something was lost in translation here, but I find your author's argument to be troubling. I'd never thought about how teachers will allow students to speak how they will when discussing in class, but then expect them to write in a completely different way, and I can see the merit to that argument, but allowing students of all backgrounds and positions even more than just the African American students to start blending in different idioms into their writing is a slippery slope into complete language chaos which she apparently acknowledges. I don't think this sort of code meshing can ever be appropriately without exculding some group and by having some sort of preserved standard English form to write in it allows there to be some sort of concensus between all English-speaking people as to what is written properly and what isn't. Perhaps I'm stuck in some sort of traditionalist mindset, but I just don't see how we could ever adapt to the code meshing of all people.
DeleteLocked Up: The Youth Crime Complex and Education in America
ReplyDeleteAuthor(s): Henry A. Giroux
Source: JAC, Vol. 30, No. 1/2 (2010), pp. 11-52
Published by: JAC
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866938 .
This article begins with the history of both the "Industrial Military Complex" and the "Industrial Prison complex" in the seventies, highlighting the Bush administrations contribution to limiting our freedoms with Iraq war policies bringing the "war on terrorism to a domestic front, and bringing the history of both up to 2010. The ideals of the industrial complex is paralleled with the non-exclusivity corporate- government relationship, asserting Corporation run states have a need to control populations with fear and brutality; moving away from welfare and empathy towards market driven imprisonment.
The author has a strong grasp of rhetorical writing and brings his audience (intellectuals and academics) the ideologies of demonizing today's youth which takes away opportunities and replaces them with imprisonment and rigid punishments. The author shows the "war on youth" and the classes/races it most effects. This section of the article is to establish tragic disparages between the view of the "threat and promise of youth" idealogy of the past with the now "threat as a virus" view of youth today.
The following is the best representation of why we imprison today..."[The prison in] U.S. society has evolved into that of a default solution to the major social problems of our times.... [IJmprisonment is the punitive solution to a whole range of social problems that are not being addressed by those social institutions that might help people lead better, more satisfying lives. This is the logic of what has been called the imprisonment binge: Instead of building housing, throw the homeless in prison. Instead of developing the educational system, throw the illiterate in prison. Throw people in prison who lose jobs as the result of de-industrialization, globalization of capital, and the dismantling of the welfare state. Get rid of all of them. Remove these dispensable populations from society. According to this logic the prison becomes a way of disappearing people in the false hope of disappearing the undesirable."(18)
The second part of this piece is a detailed description of youth education in America. The writer of this article sees punitive punishment for delinquency being a main focal point in schools today, making a correlation between crime and "rights of passage" for kids.
ReplyDeleteGiroux knows his discourse community well, represented in his use diction, pleading with academia for an imaginative social change to build the youth up as opposed to destroying them. His rhetorical awareness and his ability to bring to reality his thoughts make this a very persuasive piece.
It sounds like you read an article where the author is truly passionate about the current situation of today's youth. I find that extremely important that people should look at homelessness, illiteracy and job loss, and find a solution other then throwing them in prison. I feel that putting them in prison will continue the downward spiral in America. It will create more problems, such as higher taxes or out sourcing to other countries, which in turn will create more homelessness and job loss. Education on situations are important. The more people know the easier it will be to create solutions.
DeleteThis is an interesting rhetorical piece that speaks of an alarming issue here in the U.S. It’s been know for a while that the U.S. has the most prisoners in the world, and one can only wonder if this is a consequence of rising crime in our society or institutionally-implemented policies employed by those in power (corporation run government) like Giroux highlights. Giroux’s has a solid argument when he says that the decline of U.S. welfare state and the need to control the masses through fear and brutality augments market driven imprisonment. This is clearly evidenced by the rise of the private prison industry in the U.S. where tycoons heavily invest in what could be considered as a new form of slavery; imprisoning men and women for profit and, most disturbingly of all, economically aided by the government. It can also be seen in many of the policies that target those who are the most disenfranchised in society like the homeless and low-income individuals. Like Giroux, I do think that education offers individuals with opportunities, but when we think about it, the education system may also be another form of control and institutional estrangement of the masses. Good job Kevin!
DeleteI think a significant factor that is often unaddressed is that the cost of some of the more desirable solutions. Most prisoners suffer from a wide range of mental disorders, all of which , if treated properly, take a long term investment with delicate if any results. Furthermore, our mental health system doesn't have the capacity to address most of the issues that are catalysts for incarceration (such as drug abuse) nor does the political system have the ability to control all undesirable social elements (i.e. Gangs,). Although this is a very cold response, i would argue against it being an intimidation method of control, but rather a method used out of necessity rather than desire.This is particularly significant for why it has been outsourced to corporations rather than state run institutions. Also, even though this is more of an outlier then a norm for prisoners, some use the legal system to their advantage and create lawsuits against states that generate unrealistically large rewards. I had a book when i was younger, some 100 pages of such lawsuits, ranging from guards taking away peanut butter to inmates attempting to sue after injuries from drug smuggling with some payouts being in the millions.
DeleteOn another note, I recently read that US high-school graduation rate is now around 80%, which is apparently an improvement, and with suggestions that this percentage will rise significantly in the next 20 years. My concern is that this number is just a number, and that we will just lower the bar of high-school education just to increase that number, as some schools are already suspected of doing.
-Andrew Parks-
Agreed with all of you. Providing a HS diploma without open and satisfactory employment dos nothing except anger and frustrate people. The majority of people in prison are there for drug charges, or from extremely brutal and loveless upbringings; imprisonment for either drugs or apathy does not even act as a splint for what is broken...it only perpetuates the feeling of hopelessness.
DeleteVoss, Ralph F. “Calculators and Quality: A Paradox For Writing Teachers.” Journal of Advanced Composition, Vol II, Nos 1-2 (double issue), 1981. 11-21. Print.
ReplyDelete“Calculators and Quality: A Paradox For Writing Teachers” is and article written by Ralph F. Voss and tackles the problem of the need for writing to be evaluated in a linear and quantifiable manner. Teaching writing is based on formulas. The article focuses on the limitations of this format in particular the five page essay. (If not familiar with the 5 page essay please watch the following rap video: http://youtu.be/F_NS85rzonE). These structural frames can be analyzed in sentence formatting as well. Types of words are to be used in the right places in the right combinations. In young, developing writers: “There is no structural, quantifiable measure for the semantic and rhetorical business of getting the right words in the right places, nor can there be; but who would deny that getting the right words in the places of vital importance?” (Voss 15). Ralph F. Voss argues strongly that teachers especially in beginning composition classes should value invention over structure. Five paragraph essays and other structural containments of writing can limit a students potential as well as distract them from what they really want to say. This pressure for structural writing is being pressured by the necessity to quantify grades for students’ writing. Good writing is subjective with more than one answer. If you like wordplay check out these mad libs a mix of structural word slots and fun http://www.madglibs.com.
I completely agree that assigning a five paragraph essay can limit student writing. With that said, I still believe there is a place for it in the classroom. Teachers need to expose their students to all kinds of writing; narratives, memos, letters, persuasive, etc. Students need to know how to write for real world purposes, but they also need to know how to write formal academic papers and therefore the five paragraph essay does need to be taught. Students will need to know this for college, ACT/SAT, and the knew PARCC exam that will be implemented in this next year. Without knowledge of how to write these essays students will not perform well on these high stake tests.
Delete-Andrew Parks-
DeleteI actually admire the "attempt" to quantify writing in some manner. I realize the challenging nature of the task and the inability to capture unmeasurable traits such as creativity, artistic intent, personal voice ect. I think that as a method to evaluate -some- writing, a formal, quantifiable, standardized "evaluation" system should be put into place. The main focus would be on -some- writing and not -all- writing. Making sure to include a diverse array of writing types would be more valuable I believe in helping early writers, with some focus being on a formalized writing style that is suited towards the academic communities expectations.
Writing is not Math - period. There shouldn't be any formula to answer on how to get the correct diction. I understand "structure" when applied to formal written discourse; but in the composition classroom, let inspiration flow in whatever way works for the student.
DeleteReview Essay: Managing the Subject of Composition Studies
ReplyDeleteAuthor: Christine Farris
Source: College Composition and Communication (CCC), Vol. 65, No. 1, Sept. 2013, pgs. 209 – 216
Copyright: National Council of Teachers of English
This article brings light to the fact that Writing Composition at the college level needs to be reevaluated and restructured; and in doing so, will enrich the possibility of creating more undergraduate writing and rhetoric programs. Susan Miller “has called for a more complex view of the writing subject and for composition to reframe its identity as ameliorative” (209).
One of the issues involved with creating undergraduate degree programs in writing and rhetoric is the pushback set by other educational “disciplines” (i.e. science, math, art). The English department of most universities places strong emphasis on literature – even for those students focused on writing. Some describe new respected majors as opportunities for growth, while “others honestly recount the difficulties in the redistribution of turf and credit hours that accompany designing a writing major in a strong literature department” (215).
What many people, both scholarly and otherwise, don’t understand is that writing composition and rhetoric studies have more than enough material to be a separate, major “discipline” at the undergraduate level. Long time contributors to the idea have stressed the various courses– separate from ordinary writing classes – of which a classical rhetoric degree could include; such as, Textual Production; Civic Rhetoric; and Multimodal Writing, to name a few.
I think Professor Farris (English - Indiana University) has written a very compelling article. She gives strong support towards composition and rhetoric studies needing to become a possible major for colleges and universities. “For over thirty years the emphasis has been on claiming disciplinary scholarship [of writing] at the graduate level; now attention can be paid to the undergraduate. In addition, more English majors will be able to enter graduate programs with a background in writing, not just literary, studies” (214).
-Andrew Parks-
DeleteBased on my personal experiences with undergraduate programs. I have to say that this article makes a lot of sense to me. I went to the University of Illinois - Campaign-Urbana from 2005-2009. My first year there, one of the courses I took was Intro to Rhetoric, and it was a required course as far as I remember. That course actually set the stage for me to start seriously considering Literature and Writing courses. Before that, high school English courses were just a grade to me. As far as this article suggesting that the institutions keep their disciplines separated, I would completely agree. After the freshmen/sophomore level, there was no requirement of any sort of writing courses for my major (Business Admin), and I had to search for ways to fit them into my schedule. I had to declare a minor in English in order to even -access- the courses. Most departments were very restrictive in who was allowed to take what courses at the Junior/Senior level. To be fair though, this was across all departments, as I was also forced to go to great lengths to get into courses for an Environmental Economics and Law minor program I was in because I was a "Business" student, and didn't have priority over the "Liberal Arts" students. I at least found the English department a little more accommodating.
Part One:
ReplyDeleteIn his essay “The place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies”, Douglas Hesse discusses the state of modern writing classes. In spite of its immense popularity, creative writing exists in a bit of a bubble. Creative writing classes don’t effect other areas of academia or offer any inroads to them. Assessment is usually of limited concern. This popularity is the only thing that gives creative writing courses their power. They attract students and faculty.
Creative writing and composition are presented at odds with each other. Creative writing is jealous of composition because composition is taken seriously. Composition is jealous of creative writing because creative writing is seen as fun. Composition is the necessary evil where creative writing is undisciplined and naive.
The author has two goals. The first is to explore the division between creative writing and composition and the misunderstandings this problem creates. The second is to explain the need to find a good compromise between being “about” writing (as in, studying what’s already there) and “for” writing (as in, producing new writing).
Following this, he delves into a long discussion on the short history of creative writing in the journal. Despite its sparse appearance in keyword searches, it seems to be looked on positively. One quote I liked stated that "We think that imaginative writing in the freshman course can be of value, not to prepare freshmen to become professional writers, but to awaken them to their possibilities of distinctive and valuable personal experience and expression”. The benefit in creative writing then can be less practical and more personal, more self-discovery than empiricism.
From there Hesse discusses the ways both fields would benefit from burying the hatchet. They should remain distinct. Creative writing and composition have different aims, and should be treated as such, but they would benefit from being “friendly neighbors with fenceless backyards.” For creative writing, this means abandoning the view of composition as tiresome and controlling, being open to different teaching strategies and ways of studying writing and writers. For composition, this might mean taking a stronger interest in style and voice.
In the third part of the article, the author admittedly lost me. He didn’t really focus on the about vs. for argument like I was expecting, but instead discussed different ways that production of writing has increased thanks to the internet, and that creative writing is an important genre in spite of the fact thats benefits are less than obvious. The article closes with a look at multimodality, the use of mediums other than strictly writing to create rhetoric. Each of the students in a composition class created a short video expressing their opinions on something. The idea behind this look is to show that composition can be creative. Hesse closes with a call to bring more creativity into composition.
Part Two:
ReplyDeleteWhile this article was very long and challenging to properly summarize, I really wanted to use it because creative writing is very important to me. As a novelist and lover of fiction, creative writing means everything to me. I think creativity is something we stifle sometimes in composition. It becomes too much about reporting bland facts in a blah by the numbers format. Composition classes could benefit greatly from an infusion of the freedom and fun that creative writing classes so effortlessly bring. I don’t see any reason why one can’t be just as enjoyable and beneficial as the other. I think the author plays it a little too safe, and that a more proper mingling of the two genres should be experimented with, but I admit I’m not entirely certain what this would look like. I also felt like he undersold creative writing itself. Story and expression to me are vital parts of human existence, not just fun but part of who we are. The reason composition would benefit from creative writing is this, in putting our own narrative and voice into writing, we have the opportunity to put more of ourselves and our own stories into the writing, and make it something more than a rote repetition of facts and figures.
This conversation is rich with possibilities for the future of composition and writing studies in general. I think it would certainly make expressionists happy. The benefit to readers would be trickier to gauge… it depends on how successful and interesting this creativity winds up being. As the author of this piece noted, the internet has created a tsunami of new writing thanks to blogs and wikis and the like , but not all of it is necessarily beneficial. I suppose here is where the traditional standards of composition classes might be most beneficial. By holding ourselves to precise standards and submitting to assessment, we can improve writing to the point that it is actually worth reading.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27
917883?uid=3739568&uid=2&uid=4&uid=37392
56&sid=21103704211631
This sounds like an extremely interesting article. At the beginning of my college career (I've been taking courses on and off for seven years) I was always careful to censor myself and not allow anything that might fall beneath the category of creative writing into papers that I was turning in for other classes. Now I have much less of a filter and techniques that I use within my creative writing tend to seep into my academic writing as well. This doesn't always work out for me (especially in my Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare course) but I'd rather turn in something that I find interesting to read and write rather than something that is boring and fits within the standards typically expected of us. I agree that there is space for creative writing within academic writing and that the composition world should open up to this possibility.
DeleteRight? I've been back and forth on whether I agree that creative writing and composition should stay separate... It would be an interesting experiment but probably too much ground to cover in one course. At any rate, I think they should at least be part of the same curriculum, and that they should sort of feed off of each other. What you learn in composition could help you with your creative writing and vice versa. The near complete division we have nowadays is too extreme.
DeleteI can also see the value in allowing more crossover between creative writing and composition. Even in this class, bringing in a little more creative writing could have been useful to help us understand composition theories in a different way. In particular, it would help me to understand expressivism in a more tangible, rather than generalized, way. I've been able to apply the other theories better than I have been able to apply expressivism, and perhaps more crossover with creative writing could help with that. There are benefits and deficits to each, and I feel that composition and creative writing could each provide something of value to the other.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe article I chose, “The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies” by Douglas Hesse examines the disconnect between the disciplines of creative writing and compositional studies and suggests that the two have more to gain in working together towards their common interests. Specifically, the Hesse cites the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) and the Associated Writing Programs (AWP.)
ReplyDeleteThe CCCC “features writing teachers who are also scholars of rhetoric, writing, and communication; AWP features writers who are often teachers and, very occasionally, scholars of writing” (32). The inclusiveness of the latter strategy mean that the AWP is blossoming with new and diverse members and the former strategy leaves the CCCC more stagnant. Furthermore, there exists a bias within creative writing that, “sometimes condemns teaching composition as a regrettably necessary rite of passage toward a degree or ballast to more meaningful teaching” (32). On the other side of the issue, according to Hesse, is an envy from composition studies that creative writing programs are riding high on an unending flow of excited students and less in the way of criticism across the academy. More to the point, I agree with the contention that some creative writing pedagogies seem “habitual, narrow, and uninterrogated” (33). Without the emphasis on research and scholarly essay writing, there’s less substantive rigor in creative writing, generally.
The major issue with this provincialism between disciplines is that, “when creative writing and composition studies have little to do with one another, the division truncates not only what we teach and research but how writing gets understood (or misunderstood) by our students, our colleagues, and the spheres beyond” (34). The article then goes on to explain in great detail the specific challenges faced at different universities, and from there outlines the stake that each field has in the other.
It seems obvious reading these points, but the fact that this article was published in 2010 and the discussion still needs to take place speaks to the import of the article. As far as I can tell, departments are still segregated and more creative writing programs would do well to incorporate thesis writing and research just as more compositional programs could do with a reminder that “the new composition includes textmaking for situations in which readerships are neither compelled nor circumscribed. One of its main challenges is how writers make readers pay attention” (45) More distinctly put earlier in the piece, both fields need to find “a good mix of being ‘about’ writing/composing […] and being ‘for’ writing/composing.” (34)
Taking this course, my first with any rhetorical composition instruction, would have fleshed out much of the creative writing I’ve done earlier in my undergrad. Like I said earlier, this piece feels timely and important as much as any we’ve read in class.
Hesse, Douglas. “The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies.” College
Composition and Communication 62.1 (2010) 31-52. Print
I wrote on this article too, and I definitely agree the changes called for need to happen... I feel like they would solve a lot of the problems we've talked about in class. The creative writing classes I took emphasized personal voice, ingenuity, social effect and the role of revision in writing very effectively, where freshman comp was a lot of stifling, one-off essays we never looked at again and peer review was limited to trading papers a couple times. If composition could pick up just a fraction of the excitement and fun creative writing brings to the table, I think students would get a lot more out of it.
DeleteMany people have discussed the state of students and composition, especially regarding high school students and college freshman. It is alarming how little students and teachers know about composition skills. So where does the blame fall? Elementary teachers? Secondary teachers? College Professors? This article discusses possible answers to the lack of competency and training in teachers across the board. Jay A. Ward proposes that the requirements of teachers are to blame. Ward chose to compare the degree requirements from 1975 with current requirements, and found that not much changed. Yes some of the classes have changed but most of the instruction of English teachers is done through literary studies and very minimal amounts of advanced writing instruction. So if this is the case then how can we expect our teachers to teach in the areas that they are unskilled and ill prepared to teach? It is a vicious cycle when you think about it, and possibly why courses like Advanced Composition: Theories and Practice are created for English majors. Ward states that the requirement of English teachers does not reflect best practices when it comes to writing. Ward also compares the program requirements between public and private colleges. He found that overall the methods for instruction is 44% being taught in English departments and 56% being taught in the Education departments. But he also found that prospective teachers attending state and public institutions are more likely to be trained formally in writing pedagogy than those who attended a private college. However he did find that 17% of colleges across the country are teacher candidates are being certified without any formal training in writing. Another alarming fact is that until recently, within the last 5 years, many teachers are certified without testing their competence in the area they wish to teach. Additions of writing classes have been added to the requirements of prospective English teachers. Although changes have been made to the graduation requirements, nearly three quarters of class requirements are fulfilled in the areas of literature rather that in composition. Even though this survey was informal Ward has a couple of suggestions for institutions in the future.
ReplyDelete1) The training of English teachers should be done in the English department. Ward thinks that the teaching of writing teachers should be taught by writing specialists and a “general methods” approach is not enough to learn the specialized skills involved in teaching composition.
2) The amount of training should increase, and that may mean reducing the amount of instruction that is taught through literary studies. Literature is only part of what a teacher must know in order to teach English. New teachers should be realistically prepared for the classrooms they are going into. These skills should be taught before field placements and not acquired later on.
3) English departments should test their prospective teachers in the area they are going to teach. This will ensure that they are qualified to be teaching in the first place.
4) English teachers should be enthusiastic about teaching writing; this will show their students how important this skill is. “After all, the humanistic experience which makes reading worthwhile is meaningless to students who can neither read nor express their responses to that reading.”
Ward, Jay A. Changes in the Training of Writing Teachers 2.1-2 (n.d.): n. pag. JAC: A Journal of Rhetoric, Culture & Politics. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. .
Part II
ReplyDeleteThis conversation is important because it affects our future. A lot of the time people like to “pass the buck” and blame others for problems. So many conversations over the course of this class have been directed at the way teacher’s grade and the intent of the students writing. If teachers aren’t fully qualified in advanced writing practices, how can they teach them? There are also more requirements and standards that prospective teachers must adhere to and complete before they can be considered highly qualified to teach. Way back in 1975 this was not the case. This could be a reason that the state of education has declined since then. As a future teacher one of my biggest fears is that I am not going to know enough about the subjects I am going to teach. However I feel that my education has prepared me to do so. I have learned a lot more about the philosophies behind writing. To be honest I never knew there were such philosophies. Like anything else I believe that figuring out the intent of whatever someone is doing leads to a greater understanding of why and what they are doing. I do believe in order to teach writing well you must first understand it. Writing consists of so many different components other that grammar, which is an aspect that is traditionally focused on when teachers grade a piece of writing. This article summed up some great points on how to become more effective as an English teacher. Literature is not the only medium in which to teach English, the more time spent learning about writing will better equip prospective teachers in the future, testing knowledge in the content area serve as good indicators as to how much you know about your subject, and that enthusiasm goes a long way when you are teaching.
This is a very interesting article, Amanda. It reminds me of when Dr. Rivas asked us in one of the first class sessions why writing is taught by the English Department. It is amazing how the focus of these English courses is stretched from grammar to formulas to literature and critical reading to research techniques to MLA formatting. Where does this leave room for any sort of composition instruction? If students are lucky they'll get a single lecture on ethos, pathos, logos and rubrics that take more into account than the form and grammatical correctness. I certainly blame those in charge of designing curricula, the school boards and the department chairs of universities. There just is not room to teach so many subjects under the umbrella "English" nor is it fair to teachers or students. Ward is correct in saying that some traditional fixtures of English classes would have to be abbreviated if not removed to make room for writing theory and composition instruction. The politics of the situation is where things grow complicated. Society or at least academic society, will have to see teaching the art of writing itself as a priority. Society will have to see that teaching writing is beneficial to a liberal education or to preparing a student to be successful in a career.
DeleteThis sounds like a really interesting article. I question some of his suggestions though like testing teachers in the subject they are going to teach before teaching; isn't that what the PRAXIS exam is in place for? I am in agreement that English teachers should be trained within their department. I have had to take classes in both the education department and the English department to become a teacher and found the ones in the English area far more useful. I very much agree that something needs to be done about the state of college freshman's writing skills and capabilities; its always shocking how all over the spectrum they tend to be. I think one of the main problems is the school district. The district wants to show a high graduation rate because it makes their school look good and to do so they pass nearly anyone along whether they are ready or not, or they give them bs credit recovery that typically has little to do with the English class they failed. I am in a placement now where half the students are failing their American Lit course, but none of them care because they know the school will bail them out to graduate on time.
DeleteI read the article Indexical Humans, Iconic Animals from the JAC Journal. This piece meshed really well with our discussion about visual rhetoric last class period!
ReplyDeleteThe author, Stacy Rule, argues that humans don’t view animals as unique, individual beings, but rather as interchangeable and replaceable members of a species, pack, or horde. She utilizes Charles Peirce’s concepts of index and icon to clarify this human denial of animal identity. According to Rule, an index indicates a specific object or being. The index affirms the unique existence of the thing it refers to, without providing detailed information about the interior of that individual thing. Icons, however, are based on generalization. An icon “represents its object mainly by its similarity”, and calls to mind other similar objects within the same category. For example, seeing a single lion calls to mind every other lion, or the concept of lions in general. However, seeing a person calls to mind only that same individual, rather than a general concept of humans as a species. Rule argues that we often see animals as icons, rather than as indexes. According to Rule, our tendency to deny the identities of individual animals plays a significant role in our treatment of them. She feels that this iconic view of animals can prevent us from truly seeing or understanding cruelty towards animals. She says that “animal’s iconic status produces a conceptual distance that can […] prevent empathy.”
Rule analyzes the use of animals in film through this icon/index lens. She is particularly focused on films that are made by activists for animals rights. Rule deconstructs the techniques that these filmmakers use to try and make their audiences see animals as individuals rather that members of a mass. This is where she begins to delve into an analysis of visual rhetoric. First, there is a discussion of the power of film as a medium, with particular focus on the capacity that film has for depicting motion or lack of motion. This is particularly pertinent in scenes that show the struggles of dying animals. She then provides a highly specific analysis of both the verbal and visual rhetoric in a film about seal hunters. For example, she mentions the significance of certain camera angles that emulate the seal’s perspectives, compared to the shadowy shots that depict the seal hunters themselves. The seal’s faces are frequently shown, while the hunter’s faces are not. Rule also focuses on the role of the narrator, who gives a play by play summary of what is happening as the hunters brutally beat each seal to death. Phrases such as “this seal, that seal”, “the seal pup on the ice”, point at each seal being an individual being rather than just one of many. These techniques all seem aimed at reasserting an indexical view of the seals, rather than allowing the viewer to see the seals as icons. Rule analyzes the effectiveness of these techniques, while also speculating on whether these films can actually lead to social change. She feels that film “has the potential to acknowledge a multiplicity of particular animal lives”, but that its ability to create real change may be limited, particularly since films can only suggest animal individuality, rather than force people to truly think about and accept the idea. A great deal depends on how the viewer chooses to interpret the film and whether they are inclined to take some sort of action.
At the end of the paper, Rule talks about the reasons that humans deny animal individuality. She believes that it is partly because truly seeing animals as individuals means that we have to accept the implications of their deaths, which, by extension, forces us to confront the reality of our own mortality as well. She argues that people prefer to view animal deaths as “non-deaths”, or as insignificant, so as to avoid a deeper consideration of our own inevitable deaths. This part is kind of hard to explain in a brief summary, but in the paper her argument is laid out well and makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteThe content of this article falls very much within the new rhetorician school of thought. Rule is very focused on the effects that films have on their audiences, and on the specific editing and narrative techniques that filmmakers use to affect their viewers. Her own writing style seems to fit into the new rhetorician school as well, as she appears to be responding to a broader discussion in her discourse community. She cites other authors and uses terminology that situates this piece as a response to other pieces of writing, while also providing her own contribution to the discussion.
The subject matter of this paper is really important. I really enjoyed the focus on human concepts of animals, and the behavioral implications of these concepts. These ideas can help us understand the cognitive reasons behind human mistreatment of animals. This paper also provides a discussion of the rhetorical techniques that filmmakers can use to combat the problematic view of animals as mere icons. Above all, the conversation about icons and indexes is useful because it helps us understand the process of Othering- something which is applicable to human/animal relations, but which also occurs in interactions between groups of people who perceive each other as different. By understanding the rhetoric involved in othering, and the specific rhetorical techniques that can be used to combat this process, we may be better able to promote equality through writing, photography, and film.
P.S. The blog wouldn't let me post from home over the weekend! I tried multiple times both Friday and Sunday... Thankfully it seems to work from campus though. Professor Rivas, I sent you my post by email on Friday so that you'd know I did it, hopefully you received the email?
I considered reading this article for my review because I was interested to see how it would pertain to our Visual Rhetoric course. At first I did not think I would agree with Rule and her argument that humans don't view animals as unique individual beings but after reading the lion vs. person example I suppose I am sometimes guilty of an iconic view of animals. Our final in the Visual Rhetoric class is to present a digital argument and my presentation is about dog adoption. Reading your summary makes me want to read this article to ensure that I do not present and iconic, but rather an indexical view on animals within my own work.
DeleteThis actually sounds like a fascinating look at the power of visual rhetoric and specifically documentaries , though I take issue with the iconic vs indexical look at animals. As human beings we can't be indexical when looking at things all the time. There is a reason why in some books a chair might just be mentioned as a chair, but at other times great detail may be given to that specific chair. It suddenly has some importance beyond just being a chair. Just like with animals there is a difference between saying a dog, and my dog. My dog is cute and friendly, but that dog only calls to mind the idea of what a dog is. I can't assign a personality and life to all things and all animals all the time. That is why I think the documentary Black Fish is particularly effective nearly every single animal that the film talks about has their own name and the narrators discuss what each animal was like in the water. I think this same idea is why people are often not afraid of certain animals that they should be afraid of. Elephants are typically imagined as gentle giants and herbivores and people will be shocked when they discover that elephants can and will tear people apart given half a chance. Also, people don't like to learn that dolphins kill people and that most birds try to rape each other. Animals are weird and we typically like to think about them as general ideas rather than as individuals because nature is actually kind of a messed up place.
DeleteI've read more about indexes and icons since I posted this, in the visual rhetoric book I borrowed, and it did make me wonder whether Rule applied the definitions in a completely accurate way. It seems like they may be a little more complex and fluid than I initially thought. You have a valid point about our inabilities to be indexical all of the time- at a certain point, we need to take some cognitive shortcuts, such as iconic thinking or the use of heuristics. But I think Rule was accurate in pointing out that, overall, our view of animals is at least disproportionately iconic. That is also an excellent point about the consequences of having limited views of animal traits that are based on assumptions rather than reality. I would like to check out this Black Fish documentary!
DeleteApologies for the late post, again, the blog wouldn't let me post from at home or my local coffee shop. It seems like it only works on campus for me.
I've just read Collaboration (in) Theory: Reworking the Social Turn's conversational Imperative on the College English journal. It's fascinating to read this after having read James Berlin's Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class, because these pieces are in a way opposed to each other, but instead of being directly opposed to one another they are vertically oposed to each other or being written in opposition over decades of advancement made by one and then the second article has been written to correct some flaws asserted in the first piece. What I am trying to say is that James Berlin wrote a piece about Social-Epistemic Rhetoric that insisted that all knowledge is in a dialectical relationsip between the individual, the discourse community, and the physical state of the world. For this to be true, and it sounds good on paper, all writers are connected and every piece an author has read has directly influenced them and writing is a form of sharing knowledge and discussing all things. This led to a belief that all writing is collaborative and may other authors wrote about their thoughts on that, but that idea led to the general acceptance that all writing is collaborative. It became such a common way of thinking that actual collaborative writing no longer really had much meaning in the post James Berlin world. The article I read was all about disspelling the idea that every piece is collaborative, because when a thought like that gets out, saying it is on the same level as saying nothing at all. What about real authors that worked together to write a piece? There is an actual collaborative process beyond just reading another person's writing and creating your own personal interpretation of it and that's what Collaboration (in) Theory is all about. This was written by Evan Wold.
ReplyDeleteI find this entry to be lacking in significant detail. How am I supposed to respond to this. I hate you Evan.
DeleteThat's uncalled for Randall! Evan, why don't you offer us a clearer meaning of your article. Then we'll all respond and have a good old timey discussion.
DeleteThank you, Randy. Anyway, as I was saying, Collaboration is the process by which two or more idviduals work on a piece together, but how does this occur? According to William Duffy the people who are working together must discuss and discourse, but with the intention of coming to some concensus. This way of progressing is called Social Turn Collaboration Theory. Duffy uses another Author, Bruffee, to explain what this idea really means, "To think well as individuals we must learn to think well collectively—that is we must learn to converse well." This is the idea that thought is only internalized language and that before people can think for themselves they have to be taught by others and those others have to be able to convey their thoughts to their students. Language is merely the translation of thoughts to other people. This is important to think about regarding authors who are working collaboratively, because they have to be in communication with each other and have to find some point to agree upon. It would make little to no sense if two authors who disagreed on everything to try and write a book together. Nothing would be focused and every chapter would be disjointed from the others. Each author must have come to believe the others language at some point. I think I myself could use this information as a student because I have never liked working in groups before. It's probably because someone's ideas are often shot down and everyone is trying to come up with the best idea rather than allowing all ideas to try to mesh together and become a discourse amongst the group.
DeleteGee, Evan, that was a really great follow up. You're so cool and attractive!
DeleteI think there may be a distinction between knowledge being a dialectical relationship between the individual, discourse community, and outside world, and all knowledge being specifically collaborative. I see collaboration as an act of people working together, actively, as the social turn collaboration theory describes. But there are also phases of the knowledge creation process that occur individually, perhaps in response to an earlier dialectical discussion, but still individually. To me knowledge is a flux between collaboration and individual reflection and internalization. This makes me question whether knowledge is something that is "out there" in the world, created through consensus and existing when it is expressed in a group context, or if knowledge is something that exists internally, within individuals. Oh epistemology...
DeleteI read Self Disclosure as a Strategic Teaching Tool: What I Do- and Don’t- Tell My Students by Lad Tobin in the latest edition of the College English journal. Though it dragged on for quite some time, I found myself genuinely interested by the end. Tobin considers how personal teachers should get with their students. For example, he helped a colleague of his make a decision that was nagging at her as a teacher. Should she tell her student that just wrote an essay about finding out her mom is suffering from breast cancer that she, the teacher, just received the same news about her own mother? Would she be crossing any lines? Tobin concludes that he will always offer the same answer to questions of this nature: it depends. He goes over his own strategies and why it works for him to share certain things personal things with his students. In order to teach writing as an extension of ones self, I think that some persona is necessary. I feel like I know most of my professors on a personal level now, but I probably didn’t feel the same way in my introduction classes. Most of my professors share personal tid-bits and often even a bit too much, but we are writers. To learn from them we need to know them. I’m curious to see what the rest of the class thinks about this. Tobin made it very clear that just because it works for him does not mean it will work for every teacher. It is all situational. It works for him because of a combination of himself, his students and his teaching methods. He continually comes around to the same point: it depends. I found myself agreeing with Tobin throughout the article. I think english teachers more so have to be personal with their students than say, a chemistry teacher. Chemistry is not an extension of one’s self, therefore the material covered needs not be personalized. Any art class for that matter needs a bit of personal loving from the professor. He does seem a bit arrogant, but hell, he’s a professor (no offense Dr. Rivas). If I ever teach which I hope to do one day when all of my other aspirations die out, I will most definitely have a persona in the class because I think it will make me a more effective teacher. My favorite teachers were ones that I have built relationships with, and that is a helpful tool that allowed me to learn more efficiently.
ReplyDelete-----Andrew Parks-----
ReplyDeleteSustainability as a Design Principle for Composition:
Situational Creativity as a Habit of Mind by Matthew Newcomb
The article was trying to make the case to introduce a long-term, more resourceful approach to -thinking- about writing. It suggested a stronger focus on the “environment” (basically a larger interpretation of audience that focuses on the personal, social and institutional audiences) that our writing was impacting, and to develop a pedagogy of making a more sustainable, more relevant arguments that would be far more resourceful to their respective environments. The article argued for more avenues of feedback, as this provided a renewable resource in composition of fresh ideas and relevance to its impacted environment. Other ways in which this idea of sustainability was suggested to be achieved was to make arguments better tailored to their respective environments(i.e. classroom, university, academic community as a whole, blog, facebook post, twitter hashtag), and its impact on those environments in the long term. This means that they wanted to shift focus from beyond just satisfying a short term goal, but rather make writers think about long term impacts of their writing on their respective communities. The article gave a really good example of this theory in practice as the US constitution. It argues that it's authors created it not just to solve the problems of their time, but to address issues long after that might not occur yet but would need to be addressed.
The importance of this is that it shifts our focus as writers from beyond our immediate impact and suggests we look at a larger picture and audience. Not only should we address the current audience, but future audiences. This means we need to try and anticipate their needs and our ability to relate to their environment, such as not including trendy or slang language that future audiences may not be able to relate to. This also helps produce, as the article argues as well, a more creative look into our writing because of the larger, more diverse environment we are hoping to write for.
The usefulness of this in addressing current topics in composition theories is that it provides a framework for creating a more meaningful focus to composition. The idea of a feedback loop providing a renewable resource in composition seems particularly practical, especially in the classroom. In a non-academic atmosphere the usefulness would be to create dialog that is more timeless, and this is particularly useful for social networking. The ability to keep a conversation continuing, and crafting a focus beyond just the immediate term can be particularly beneficial to those communities and, as the conversation develops, hopefully beneficial to society as a whole. My criticism of this philosophy would be that this act of creating a longer term wider focus could diminish the value of some arguments, especially those that are dependent on either a historical perspective or current events. Not all arguments are meant to be timeless, as some current events are not focused on fundamental human conditions and thought.
"The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies" by Douglas Hesse (CCC)
ReplyDeleteSummary
The content differences between Associated Writing Programs (AWP) and College Composition and Communication (CCC) mirror the rift between composition studies and creative writing. Creative writing, in terms of student enrollment, is at a popularity high, but it often resists assessment and compositional analysis. The author seeks to heal that rift, suggesting that both fields can gain from each other. In other words, writing "for" and writing "about" writing can benefit each other. CCC has had very few articles on creative writing, under its various names and genres. Study of creative writing pedagogy is even more sparse, leaving it toward business interests and a focus on the writing itself. While creative writing overall has resisted a spot in composition studies, the study of craft in creative nonfiction has blossomed. Part of the issue has been creative writing's association with personal rather than professional development. Further, expressivism and its romantic inclinations have been the target of criticism. Because of that, the teaching of style has also suffered. The study of craft seems less important than the social and political ends spoken of within rhetorical situations. Both sides can benefit from a multifaceted understanding of writing, valuing both the aesthetic and the rhetorical. Digital media has shifted the world from reader-centered to writer-centered. This benefits capitalist structures while simultaneously giving voice to more of the masses. Composition studies could grow by further studying the existential benefits of writing. Inversely, creative writing can grow by enveloping social change as a goal. Both need to address multimodality and multimedia (not to get too far away from writing itself, though).
-Joe Honsberger
This article is useful and important because I too have noticed this rift, but I didn't know and feel as succinctly as this article does. Through all the articles that we've read, I've had to adapt the knowledge to my own expressivist growth. In my classes, I've sensed a disparity on creative craft among other things. Very few classes have talked about professional matters, like submitting, and many writing assignments seem geared toward just writing for the teacher. I'd like to see creative writing as a field of study and I hope this article inspired others to pursue it.
Delete-Joe Honsberger
Chosen work: “Closing Deals with Hamlet’s Help: Assessing the Instrumental Value of an English Degree” by Sheryl I. Fontaine and Stephen J. Maxel
ReplyDelete---
In “Closing Deals with Hamlet’s Help”, Fontaine and Mexal provide a criticism of the 2011 book Academically Adrift, by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. Arum and Roksa’s book details their survey of freshman and sophomore students at 24 post-secondary institutions and that 45 per cent of those students showed no improvement in their critical thinking, writing, and complex reasoning skills.
Fontaine and Maxel disagree with the arguments made in the book and detail them in their article in College English. Their assessment of Academically Adrift is that it written with the attitude of “kids these days” and does not actually address whether these first and second-year students are actually learning anything. Fontaine and Maxel argue that liberal arts education is non-instrumental and that the value of a liberal arts education cannot actually be made into a quantitative measurement. The metaphor they frequently return to is one of sailing (which is inspired by Academically Adrift’s title). Most students have some kind of a plan for their lives and early careers at first while they are at shore, but once they begin to set sail, they lose track of what that plan was with time and the further away from shore that they are. This metaphor can be applied to all academic disciplines, whether they are a liberal arts education or not. Someone that enters training to become an HVAC repairman might have a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and is getting this training and certification out of necessity for securing a job, but it is foolish to think that someone would get a bachelor’s degree in philosophy so that they can become an HVAC repairperson.
Fontaine and Maxel also argue that an English degree, or just about any liberal arts education, can be applied to the working world in ways that benefit the individual. The experience of learning for students is an individual, personal experience for each and every one. In their article, Fontaine and Maxel also conducted their own survey of alumni from California State University-Fullerton from the 1960’s up to 2011 that graduated with English degrees and divided them by decade. In their survey, the alumni polled had a whole constellation of different careers from human resources, sales, government, and systems analysts. Most of them found that their experiences as English undergrads have assisted them with their work in many ways across all of these different occupations and decades.
I am in agreement with these findings and feel that a liberal arts education, even when only a small sample of it is required for non-liberal arts majors, is beneficial to all of us as students and as professionals. Even for an engineering student, being able to argue Voltaire is not the point of having to study his work, but to put that student outside of their comfort zone for four months and to teach them how and why to consider other points of view and how to process information. No matter where our lives take us, we are all consumers of media, culture, and information. It is necessary that we are all able to process it and separate the good from the bad and not be blind to everything around us.
---
Fontaine, Sheryl I. and Mexal, Stephen J. “Closing Deals with Hamlet’s Help: Assessing the Instrumental Value of an English Degree.” College English 76.4 (2014): 357-378. Print.