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scholars of writing, what we’re taught is often outdated ideas about the art of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:
Respond to other posts:
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
As I saw the list of Journals We were to choose from, it came to my attention the “College Composition and Communication". I read an article called Evolving Digital Publishing Opportunities across Composition Studies by Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe. I was amazed to see how digital press has impact the communication in colleges and in the world we have today. However I found myself pondering on the actual publication progress itself and how universities impact the ability of an actual undergraduate to be publish.
ReplyDeleteIt truly picks apart the actual rhetorical situations students tend to face while attempting to be publish in an era where the standers are currently shifting and demands are not what they seem like. It actual addressed multiple topics such as the role of technology in todays actual publishing, and the fact that it tends to be a lot more faster that previous years when it would require more from the writer. Along with the improvement of society, in today’s world it’s hard to distiches the actual truth and hard evidence from what anyone could write from their room. It discussed issues like the target of the audience and the abilities of writer to express themselves and make an actual point in today’s world.
I found this to be extremely helpful, due to the fact that as writers involved in today’s societies and addressing issues, are we able to adapt along with technology and the developing publishers? Or will we simply not want to be publish at all?
I think digital publishing is a very interesting topic as well and it is changing the way a lot of author's work is getting to the public. 20 years ago getting published meant getting your work approved by a publishing company, which historically has been very challenging even for good writers. Today anyone can self-publish their work and not just for online forums like blogs. I think Amazon actually has some program to help people get published for free. So the digital age is definitely changing the way that people are getting their work out there. Not to mention all of the other digital types of literacy that we've been discussing like Powerpoint and Prezi. For these reasons I do feel that publishing and technology meld well together, and publishing companies are catching up to that as well. But I do think publishing plays an important role. It is kind of a road block that tries to only let through work that is considered "good", at least by that companies standards.
DeleteSorry guys this was done
DeleteBy Denisse Vazquez
Denisse,
DeleteI don't think there's enough classes or campus resources that educate writers about the publishing process. Personally, I've only been exposed to the publishing process at Metro by Dr. Leslee Wright in my Fiction Workshop class. She explained the submission process as well as what to expect in terms of acceptance and rejection. I think English students are not armed with a enough information about how to publish and therefore don't try. It would seem that digital publishing could be easier because there is no middle man in the process, but again if students are not exposed in classes, they will have to learn on their own outside of school. The process of getting published just seems so daunting. Have you ever tried to submit any writing to get published, digitslly or otherwise? Thank you!
Rebecca Errico
DeleteThis is something I tend to think about a lot. If I want to edit and work for a publishing company in the future I have to know where things are going to go. With every thing move toward digital publication more I do agree with Christina that it helps a lot when professors, especially those who write for the field they are teaching in, add something at the end of the semester that discusses publication. I have had that with three professors and loved the experience. I will say though the article and comments made me think about competition that is now involved with publishing, if a writer sends their work out. And I think it has gotten harder. With technology comes, at least from what I have seen, a lower tolerance for any mistakes. This could be a positive, to get people to edit one more time or spend some extra time on the piece. Or it could just discourage them. Since digital seems to be more impersonal it could be even more difficult to keep trying.
The article I chose to read was entitled "The Literature of Poverty, The Poverty of Literature Classes". This Article was from the journal College English. This article has to do with poverty in a classroom. The author, John Marsh is a professor, and he decided to create a project on his campus called The Odyssey Project. The projects goals were to offer classes to the impoverished of the community for free. This would include tuition, books, and any other fees. If a student completed the course, they would receive six college credit hours that they could then transfer to an institution of higher learning.
ReplyDeleteMarsh's had one real concern with the project: whether poverty instruction will have any good progress in the community. He believed that it would not. His main goal was to educate students on the poverty in the U.S. so they are able to see how essential poverty has been to the literary world. He called this, "class discovery". He mentions how, a citizens, it is our responsibly to step outside our shoes and view the world outside our normal day-to-day routine.
As Marsh was discussing this concept, he also brought up the fact that the world easily forgets what we have learned. He states that we have to constantly be reminded of what is important . We have to avoid ignorance, and start paying attention.
One of my favorite quotes from the article states,"In addition to learning a great deal about the history and literature of poverty, students in these discussions are pressed to evaluate-and reevaluate-their own attitudes toward poverty. Moreover,they must ask questions in a classroom where the right answer . . . has not been given to them in advance" (614). This quote made me think of our classroom this semester. This was the way we went about doing this, and it was highly educational.
Marsh's final thoughts were concerning the purpose of the study. He states that the study has little to do with the poor themselves, but rather the cultivation of the students own thinking skills, their critical thinking (614).
This article has nothing to do with composition theory; however, it does have some good things to say about thinking. Of course the topic of poverty is important to our society, but for the purpose of this blog, i happen to find the topic of thinking, as being the central focus and most important topic discussed. If a person learns to look past what they know, what they are used to, and what they are comfortable with, then perhaps one will be able to critically think about controversial topics with an open mind.
This article does a good job at inspiring the reader. Marsh is very blunt in his stance, and feeling towards people who have a closed mind. For hist study to work, he must create a classroom when open thinking and discussions are a regular occurrence. Without critical thinking, and an open mind, learning a new concept is virtually impossible. One will always take a stance without hearing the other side.
This article creates a good means for discussing an open mind. It is written rather simply but it is written in a way in which it would be a good opening read for any class that is designed around open discussions. It also gives students a a goal; to create an open mind within themselves and apply it toward the reading over the semester.
The topic of poverty could also be useful depending on the rhetorical situation. If a class was discussing this topic, then this article would be very nice to include. It is about fifteen pages, yet it is easily understandable. The article does take a stance; however, this could be a good means for conversation and, again, an open mind.
All in all this article drew on the concept a person's own critical thinking, primarily concerning poverty, but applicable to any other topic of discussion.
We've read a lot about rhetoric from different viewpoints this semester: writing as women, LGBT, and different races. Some of the articles we've read touch on the idea of poverty stricken people, but there have been none dedicated solely to that purpose, so this definitely is applicable to our discussions. The quote you chose is pretty powerful, and it says a lot about what the professor's goal was for this class. And again I agree with you, asking questions that the students (or indeed anybody else) don't have the answer to. But to your point this class hasn't been about answering questions as much as it has been about asking the right ones to help direct our thinking.
DeleteNaomi,
DeleteFirst let me say that i agree with Steve, indeed the quote does sound very powerful and this article does seem incredibly applicable to the conversation we have had over the entire semester. I do feel that within the topic of poverty lies questions about power dynamics. we have explored this topic quite a bit in our own course. this is particularly interesting because the power dynamic is also, quite literally, brought into the classroom.
Karl Bozeman
Composition Studies. Fall2013, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p78-97. 20p.
ReplyDeleteEnglish 3135: Visual Rhetoric
By: Oriana Gatta
This essay focuses on Professor Gatta’s own experience teaching Visual Rhetoric at Georgia State University. It begins with a description of the University for contextual reasons then discusses the author’s rationale for implementing comics in the class. Personally I don’t feel that the use of comics requires justification as material in a visual rhetoric class, however there was some interesting background information in this section.
Gatta then proceeds to tell the reader about his goals in the Visual Rhetoric class:
(1) expand definitions of composition beyond alphabetic texts,
(2) identify the rhetorical significance of genre conventions and the media through which they are expressed, (3) highlight narrative and metanarrative intersections,
(4) explore comics as examples of multigenre, multimedia narrativity, and
(5) help students compose original, research-based arguments in comic form on some aspect of contemporary popular culture to demonstrate a nuanced understanding of visual rhetoric.
(Gatts, Pg. 4)
While I’m sure these goals are addressed in the class materials, there are no given examples of how in this essay. The rest of the essay is essentially examples of what students created as their final projects, as well as informal feedback from the students about the class.
Essentially his main argument is that comics deserve a hallowed place in the realm of visual literacy because it is a link between pure text literacy and pure visual literacy. I don’t disagree with the value of comics in the use of visual literacy, but in this essay Gatta fails to bridge the gap between his using comics as a teaching tool and how it aided the students in their final projects which he feels shows their adequate understanding of visual literacy. Nonetheless this is an important article because it is evidence that there is a push in schools around the country (ours included) to bring visual literacy into the realm of comp. studies.
I found you article to be really fun and to talk about a shift that is occurring with in our class
DeleteFor instant Dr. Rivas is going to be teaching the same class, but with a new approach to it and i find it to be super interesting how teachers are experimenting and wanting to shift towards new ideas and methods.
the new approach both teachers and students are taking towards creating change in the the rhetoric field.
Rebecca Errico
DeleteI love that graphic novels and visual literacy are becoming more well established at a college level. I do admit that while this article sounds cool I do wish the correlation between the graphic novels and composition and the final projects were more fleshed out. Though I do have to wonder if the students were aware of rhetoric and composition studies before the class started and this was an expansion or if they came in new to it all, because that could really change things.
Agreed, especially now when there, are textbook out now that have taken the shape of a comic. And I would believe with the type of visual that, are used in those type of textbooks would keep students entertained in class, or maybe just less likely to pay attention in class. Yet the use of visuals in classes could either help or distract students depending in how the students normally learn in class. Like for me I'm a visual learner, and experience type.
DeleteI think it is interesting that he does not give any examples on how to implement his ideas. I feel that we have read a lot of articles this semester that have the same flaw. It seems that many authors have some really good ideas, yet they do not know how to implement them. I remember when were doing our Young Scholars Review. This was a key problem that was brought up in discussion. I wonder what could be done in our own classroom that would help fix this problem?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteComputer and Composition. Issues in transitioning from the traditional blue-book to the computer-based writing assessment. March 2015. Pages 41-51.10p.
ReplyDeleteby Nathaniel J. Hunsu.
In the Journal written by Nathaniel, he examines how schools are transitioning from using of penmanship on paper to writing electronically. He talks about how our educational system could be better improved, by transitioning all together into a computer based education. He explains how by transitioning into a computer-based education could improve student understanding; not just improve, but has to be factual. He also adds by transitioning our educational system into computer based education it would be significantly faster to obtain standardize test scores. It would be an immediate scoring system; over shipping the test, and waiting for the results. Computer-based education would place everyone who knows how to use a computer, on an even playing field. Even students who English is there second language (ESL). A computer-based education system would place everyone on even ground when comes to writing effectively. However a computer-based education can, have its drawbacks.
For instance what if students can't get access to a computer; or even know how to use a computer, and not just that, but understand how to use one effectively. The students may not even know how to use programs like "Word" or "PowerPoint" effectively; the teacher would have to teach this few students how to use this programs, taking away valuable class time, from the rest of the class.
Even with some of the drawback that computer-based education may have on some of the students I would argue in support of the findings that the author showed in the article. In the article, he explained that there are programs that can help a student's writing comprehension. Programs that can help spelling, grammar, and other issues that can hinder good writing. Not just that he argues that i is crucial to know how to write effectively in a computer compared to writing on paper presently.
I would have to agree with what the author explained in his article. When it comes to writing on a computer it is quicker, and more effective process than writing on paper. For someone like me who has bad penmanship, the use of writing on a computer has been more effective for me. Not just writing, but for research, emailing, and learning other subjects that wouldn't be so easily accessible with a computer.
Hi Juan!
DeleteThis sounds like a very poignant article. Right now in my college classrooms (like this assignment for ENG 3510) I am seeing a shift towards making composition education more digital/computer based.
I do think there are drawbacks, like the ones you mentioned, to shifting completely to a computer-based education, but for the most part I agree with the benefits you presented. We live in a world that is fasted paced and our education is struggling to keep up with the increasing demands of the job market. Introducing computers into classroom will help students prepare for a more digital world. I think the most important comment you make is that computer based learning would help more ESL students meet the high standards of education without discouragement and without disregarded their first language as an non-legitimate form of communication in the classroom.
One question I always have when pondering this topic is how should teachers implement computers in the classroom in a way that promotes rigorous composition? And how do they approach emailing writing, blogging, and other forms of writing that are automatically digital—or do they approach them at all when teaching composition?
The author made many points when it came to composition in a computer- based education, some which I forgot to mention in my post. One of the biggest points that the author was trying to make was getting rid of penmanship and move into digital-composition. Yes, he did talk about emailing and using programs other programs to enhance education through the use of computers. The only problem I can see that I might not have read was advancement in technology, and how it make things difficult for the teacher in the future.
DeleteRebecca Errico
ReplyDeleteI read the article “Gutter Talk: (An)Other Idiom of Rhetoric” by Joshua C. Hilst. In it the author talks about the importance of the gutter in graphic novels for rhetoric and juxtaposition. It starts off by mentioning that a lot of the story happens in the gutter between panels and how it is the readers job to interpret that. The writer can’t put the pieces together for the reader so what matters is how they use the gutter. Meaning how do they get the ideas they want across using the knowledge people already have. From here he uses the gutter as a way to go against an argument made about writers.
That argument is that scholars must either follow just rhetoric or composition. But Hilst says that gutters prove that both can be used. To him gutters work as, what he calls, metonymical catachresis. That graphic novels use of the gutter is a way to mix metaphors and such to get the desired effect. And they are catachresis because there isn’t a 100% correct answer to them. This is the opposite of other visual arts that are focused heavily on coherence. Juxtaposing opposite ideas, would allow students to rethink how they see arguments and research other arguments. These reactions and inferences happen with a medium that is visual and text and because of that they get to ideas text along doesn’t. Because of that everything in and outside of the panel needs to have a weight. Most importantly the arrangement and the gutters, because it is in the gutters that students and readers need to make those decisions on what happens. He concluded with calling graphic novels and the gutters slasher rhetoric. Slasher rhetoric pairs different ideas together and by being together they create new idioms. He compares that the slash between composition and rhetoric. Which is his larger point it seems, that, like in graphic novels both forms of writing can work together.
I think this is an important argument to make. And the biggest reason deals with students and how they see composition and rhetoric. It could help them expand on rhetoric and composition styles that they aren’t comfortable with. Having to look at it from an expressive side with the visuals as one part of the equation. Since the visuals need to evoke an emotion first and for most. Then on to a more formalist side with the text that has to be placed with precision. And so it is a very simple way to start talking about what different forms of rhetoric are out there. In a way that is easy to understand. It shows how different styles can be used in one piece of writing. That writers can bounce between the forms of rhetoric that are useful in that moment.
I like the ideas in this, and they go well with the ideas in the article I read, which also made an argument that composition and rhetoric need each other and are part of each other. I have a lot more trouble taking in information from pictures than from words, so I struggle to read graphic novels and comics. When possible I even put closed-captioning or subtitles on in movies so that I can read them more than watching them. But your post makes me want to undergo the difficulty the medium of graphic novels poses for me because I want to look at how information is presented and see if it does the things your post says it can. I also very much enjoy juxtaposition of opposing ideas.
DeleteI wondered while reading this if you create graphic novels, or if you just enjoy reading them. In Metro's writing program I've met students who do create graphic novels, and I admire that so much, even though I can't begin to create the visual art that goes along with them. Thanks for writing this.
Rebecca Errico
DeleteI don't create them myself but the graphic novel class offered at Metro was really amazing to take. I have a whole new appreciation for the form and how everything must work together in them. I think it would be fun for you to step back and look at them from a technical point of view if you find the medium harder. Then it is about coming at it from a place that you know and getting, maybe, to the points that you don't.
As a fan of graphic novels it's very interesting to see how different writers and artist use the gutters.Some are standard boxes and don't do much in a way to juxtapose ideas and emotions rather just focus on driving their narrative forward. I feel like the Sandman series is a very good example of how graphic novelists can play with the medium to convey themes and ideas. It's sometimes difficult to a new reader of comics or graphic novels, for me it's one of the biggest appeals of the medium. The fact it combines visual and written rhetoric makes for a unique experience not offered by the written word alone.
DeleteRebecca Errico
DeleteI love Sandman, though I do have to admit that when it comes to following the story, and the themes, that would be one of the harder ones if someone is new at the art. But yes I do think it is a great example for what the article is talking about. But your point about the variation of use of the gutter is a really good point. Something like the tv news boxes in Dark Knight are pretty straight forward but other parts aren't.
Rebecca, thank you for your ideas. I can read simple things like Elfquest, but when I try something more complex like Watchmen is when I have trouble. I would love to read that and Sandman, because I think those are the sorts of graphic novels where everything interesting happens, like the juxtapositions you mention. Trying to understand them from a technical viewpoint might be exactly what I need. Thanks so much!
DeleteApparently my love for teaching reaches deep into my subconscious even when picking journal articles to read for ENG 3510. The article I stumbled upon and decided to read is entitled “ Word Study and Composition” by Dennis Rygiel. The article was published NCTE (National Council of Teacher of English, yay!) in College Composition and Communication.
ReplyDeleteDennis’s argument is simple: we do not focus enough on words when studying and teaching composition. He explains that students, both in reading and writing, have a general lack of understanding of words themselves. Not to say that students are unfamiliar with definitions (although this happens regularly and students rarely care to ask for the definitions anyway) but rather students, “lack of sensitivity to the powers and limitations of words.” Dennis points out that we have a tendency to think and write in phrases and therefore emphasis and attention to the power that a single word contains is lost.
“The potential value of explicit linguistic and stylistic study of individual words in context,” is what drives Dennis’s article. He is by no means suggesting that studying words should take up the majority of class nor is he suggesting creating another theory of composition; instead, he is taking a humble approach to ensuring that a simple area of study if not left out of composition classrooms.
He goes on to give an example of a practiced used in his classroom in which students take a word from whatever they may be reading in class (a novel, article, poem etc.) and explain the function of the particular word in 11 categories, which are: context, grammatical function, written form, sense, levels of abstraction/generality/literalness, etymology, function/associations, scope or status, semantic relations, and stylistic implications and effectiveness. He explains each of these and gives a logical rational as to why these are effective elements to explore.
This article is important firstly for all future teachers of any level because it gives tangible approaches to enhance the teaching of composition. A teacher of composition should constantly be varying practices and exposing students to different theories and ways to approach the writing process. Also, I love words. What English major doesn’t? Words like obfuscate, moist, pugnacious, fabulous, cellar, swirling, and manifestation all have incredibly different meaning and depending on the context are each used in multiple ways. Words are the building blocks of our language, so why aren’t we teaching students of composition to have reverence for them? This article is important because it brings us back to the basics, and reminds us that it is indeed necessary to teach the power of words lest we receive essays and creative writing that is vague, imprecise, and generally boring to read.
This article doesn’t speak to a particular theory of composition but rather, in my opinion, shows how simple practices in the classroom can incorporate multiple theories and be legitimately affective ways to enhance understanding of language. This speaks to the conversation of composition theory in a poignant way—a way I haven’t seen much of in the class (but that’s totally fine because talking about teaching strategies was not the inherent nature of the class). I think it’s more than useful to talk about composition in a less theoretical and more practical way. In fact, it is in articles like these I come to understand the implications of each theory the best.
I find this argument very persuasive, and one that causes one to ponder . . . how can we help our students to retain more words? How often do our students actually look up words in the dictionary? How often, besides our 10 or however many weekly vocabulary words, do they really learn new words?
DeleteAs I child, I used to study a new set of words from the dictionary relatively often (yes, I'm a word geek). Just because most don't do this, I think we should not shy away from using words that some of our students might not understand - they should feel free to ask about them and perhaps pick up a new word from the experience.
I love that you did that Mariam! I also loved reading and words as a child, but was often outcaste by the advanced reading groups in schools because I (as I now know) am dyslexic. So my love for words began to take a backseat.
DeleteThe questions you ask are wonderful, and questions that all teachers should be asking themselves. I think the most important thing to consider when exposing students to different words and their purposes is that the words should always be in context to what they are reading. I think poetry is a wonderful way to examine the purpose and meaning of words. I think of imagist poetry and how not a single word is wasted within an imagist poem. Also simple things like having a word of the day. Just having students immersed in a literacy rich environment I think is how we begin to approach the solution to this argument.
Thanks for your reply! :-)
I love this classroom approach! I agree that we do not teach the basics enough in our classes. I mentioned in class that I believe that the teaching approaches are like a pendulum, always going to one extreme or another. I am happy to see that it is working its way back to teaching the basics. I fell like we need a good balance of theory and basic English instruction to create a well working classroom.
DeleteI also liked that the author gives an example of a teaching method that can be used in class. I think it is important to include a solution to the problem mentioned in the paper. I really like this article as well!
I, too, enjoy the argument this article makes. As Mariam stated I was a fan of vocabulary and learning new words in grade school, but as I got to higher levels the teachers would instead suggest students use a thesaurus so the writing offers some degree of variety. However I feel like just looking up synonymous words is not the same as actually understanding how one word could be more affective in certain contexts than another and an actual increase in vocabulary is a helpful tool not only in writing but speech and regular everyday life as well. As you stated this would be very helpful to poetry and creative writers who seek to paint with words.
DeleteAshley,
DeleteThank you so much for sharing this article! I agree that every future educator should read that article. I don't think worksheets or spelling tests teach students to have pride in their word usage and or reveal in the power of words. In student writing, I do not see many teachers (elementary that is) taking time to explain why one word choice may be more effective than another based on context. I think that if we teach students to love words early on, they will care about the way they use them in their writing later.
I’m really glad you guys enjoyed the things my article had to say; thanks for responding!
DeleteNaomi, I like how you mentioned back to basics. I in no way would ever promote teaching from a grammar workbook or anything like that, but there is something to be said about providing students with tools for basic composition success. Most importantly—anything like this must be taught in context to what students are reading and/or writing.
Maks, I absolutely agree with you that using a thesaurus doesn’t go far enough, especially for creative writing. I’m glad you latched on to the creative piece because I’m doing my best as an education student to always include and think about creative writers when talking about composition studies and pedagogy.
Christina, I love that you use the word pride. All this focus on writing in schools and teachers hardly teach students to be proud of their writing after working hard. I think pride in writing (and frankly, better writing) would come more naturally if students were taught how to be more specific and purposeful with their word choice.
I greatly enjoyed your article! I think the best way to increase a student's vocabulary is through exposure, both through reading or through writing. I subscribe to the theory that a reader builds vocabulary based on context and narrative. Additionally, I also feel that an engaging narrative can lend itself better towards a reading not only learning new vocabulary but retaining that vocabulary as well.
DeleteI was intrigued by the title of the article I read after one of the discussions we had in class. “FB in FYC: Facebook Use Among First-Year Composition Students” by Ryan P. Shepherd was an enlightening subject that looked at first-year composition students’ usage of Facebook as well whether or not they considered that usage to be composition.
ReplyDeleteThe article spoke of a number of studies that had been done with Facebook users, but that most of them did not directly tackle the issue of how students felt about the writing they do on Facebook. Surprisingly, the majority of respondents to this study did not feel their Facebook commentaries to be composition, and even felt that manipulating photographs and creating PowerPoint presentations were more a type of composition than Facebook.
I must say that prior to reading the article I would have agreed with the students, although now it seems obvious that Facebooking should be considered composition. Many of the students use this form of social media to comment on friend’s walls or posts, as well as for chatting, which are both forms of composition. A stimulating issue brought up by the author was that those students who tended to think of themselves as good writers often thought out their Facebook posts before writing them, and some even wrote them somewhere else before posting them to Facebook. This indicates the rhetorical understanding of audience among those students, as well as their acceptance that their image is directly correlated to their Facebook posts (invention).
I was hoping that the author would delve into the issue of gender usage on Facebook by these first-year students, but since that was not the focus of the survey it was not addressed. I feel that Facebook composition is expressive discourse since active users often post feelings, fleeting thoughts that have come across their minds, updates on physical position or even what a they ate for dinner. These are a novel form of free writing that engages both the author and the rhetorical audience. What was a beautiful inference from the article is how useful Facebook can be for educators, and a short discussion on how teachers can use Facebook to extend their composition teaching.
This article is important because as mentioned in the article, as of December 2012 Facebook had one billion active monthly users, a huge portion of whom are college students. Some studies have even suggested that 99% of college students at least have a Facebook profile. In order for students to think of social media as composition, teachers and professors must themselves understand and even accept that Facebook is part of college students’ lives and embrace it as a form of composition education.
I just had to reply to your post Mariam because I find the study of Facebook fascinating in all regards. It’s disappointing that you said the article didn’t go into much of how the students felt about their own writing on Facebook because I do think that could have been the heart of a study like this.
DeleteIn terms of composition theory, this sounds like an interesting new rhetorician perspective in terms of begging the questions: what social discourse community is something like Facebook and what kind of writing to writers feel compelled to produce for this discourse community?
I absolutely agree with why you stated this article was important. Facebook, along with many other social media sites, has many users and its influence and relevance doesn’t seem to be going away.
I greatly enjoyed your discussion! It's interesting to see how students regard their own writings and/or composition on social media websites. I have seen many people, for example, use Facebook, Twitter or Instagram as a means to simply talk to other people. On the other hand, I have also seen people use these social media sites to tell narratives or other forms of composition through various means. For example, this article about a teen who uses photo composition to form a narrative about young adult novels: http://www.seventeen.com/life/a29094/this-teen-became-famous-on-instagram-just-for-reading-blueeyedbiblio/?src=TrueAnth_SEVENTEEN_TW&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5540ec5204d301513d000001&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter Or this singer and actress who uses photography to compose a narrative about her daily life: https://instagram.com/debbyryan/
DeleteI too find this discussion helpful and interesting. I wonder if it is arbitrary as to where we draw the line between what we consider "composition" and what we do not. Sure, I would agree that those who premeditate their Facebook posts are at least actively participating in the writing process, but even those who mindlessly contribute are still subject to peer-review. If I choose to attribute meaning to nonsense, is it still not composition? I'm not sure.
DeleteOk... round 3, let's hope it works this time.
ReplyDeleteAlright, y'all, so I read "Design Thinking and the Wicked Problem of Teaching Writing" by Carrie S. Leverenz. I quickly settled on this paper because of the introductory paragraph led me to believe it was going suggest something other than it did. The paper begins by implying that there is too much focus on teaching the composition of academic writing and not that creative writing is excluded. You could see how this made me excited as I was hoping for an argument that encourage more creative focus.
Anywho, Leverenz instead suggests that the teaching of writing should be implemented in the same way that design courses are. Yes, the design courses that hope to turn their students into future innovators. This lady encourages that we look at writing as a problem-solving process, but not quite in the way of the cognitive theory. Rather she implies the need to create "wicked" writing assignments- where the "information is confusing" and impose conflicting values. In design these wicked tasks are characterized by constraints such as budget. Leverenz (I've written this so many times I can actually spell her name correctly now!) argues that the usual constraints given to writing students, such as the need for MLA citation or standard paper formatting, are "meaningless." She offers an assignment which tasks writing students to translate a research draft into a slideshow presentation, suggesting that such projects lead students to analyze their research in new ways.
Her next point to encourage writing as a design process is to write in teams. Though similar to collaborative learning technique already applied by many writing courses, she encourages a team writing project versus the peer response approach which focuses on evaluating individual work. Her argument is that team writing will invite students to share ideas and generate various solutions. Unfortunately, as we discussed earlier in the semester, group work does now always implement the voice of every group member.
Just as the design students are tasked with creating various prototypes to solve problems, Leverenz wants the drafting process of writing to mirror the notion. It would mean that the students not only produce different drafts but that each draft explore different ideas and each idea be presented differently. She hopes that this would discourage the students to commit to any idea without having thought of others "By experimenting with a variety of forms, sharing their experiments with others, and then selecting the modes and forms they believe work best, students truly become designers of writing."
If you're like me you were probably wondering "So what? How does one apply this to teaching writing?" Well have no fear, for she has you covered.
Leverenz introduced the design thinking theory to her own class. Ditching the standard research paper (yay!) she instead placed students in small teams. The teams were given a choice of problems to address including multitasking, cyberbullying, cell phone addiction and other. The students were than tasked with defining the problem, audience and different approaches to the solution- the rest of the class voted on which solution was best- all the while each individual were to document their process through writing. The final project was a written report of why the teams decided to present their solution the way they did (video, sketches, storyboards, or whatever else they chose).
This article brings an important aspect to the conversation of composition in that Leverenz tries to bring a new way to encourage writing. I personally do not find that teaching writing as a design course is very useful. Even Leverenz herself acknowledges the fact that this class was not a course in learning how to write, rather that she wants to engage students to how writing could be useful in their lives outside of school.
Believe it or not, I actually think some of this sounds like fun. I am curious what kinds of writers a steady diet of this type of course would produce, but not curious enough to suggest inflicting that on any actual students. However, this Comp Studies course this semester has really made me appreciate how many different ways people over the years have taught me writing, and the diversity of approaches, while presented in one of our readings as a problem of disorganization, to me seems like a great strength.
DeleteIt seems like the approach suggested in the article you chose would be frustrating to go through, at least for me, but like I would learn to look at writing and the problem-solving that is part of the writing process from a new angle, and I think that's useful. I often find frustrating writing classes to be very useful, because the frustration is the sensation of me forcing new ideas through my brain and forcing my brain into new configurations. It's like a stretching exercise to give your muscles more flexibility, kind of painful at the time, but useful down the road.
What is it that you were hoping the article would be about, and what do you think your response would have been if it had better conformed to your expectations?
I completely agree that it was an interesting approach to problem-solving and to encourage developing new ideas. The only thing that troubles me is that I don't see how this would help the students become stronger writers when it comes time to put their new found knowledge on paper. Just as a painter may have unique and interesting idea to convey an intended message it wont make for diddly squat without the actual skill to paint.
DeleteVery interesting! I think this article should be read by anyone going into teaching because teachers sometimes struggle with making core subjects like writing engaging to students. I liked all the different mediums available to each student, and the democracy of the activity. For elementary school, I think this approach is worth a shot. I can see multiple common core standards that this activity could meet. For college, however, I don't know if this activity would satisfy writing students' expectations. I think they could benefit from using multiple visual platforms, but I know that group work is sometimes difficult for college students, especially at a commuter campus like Metro. Thank you for sharing!
DeleteKathleen Crowley - Part One
ReplyDeleteZwagerman, Sean; "Local Examples and Master Narratives: Stanley Fish and the Public Appeal of Current-Traditionalism". College Composition and Communication, Vol. 66, No. 3, Feb. 2015
My chosen article was Sean Zwagerman's "Local Examples and Master Narratives: Stanley Fish and the Public Appeal of Current-Traditionalism." It presents a current blogger's possibly inadvertent attack on college composition and by laying bare his blog's logical fallacies and internal contradictions, tries to rescue the man from himself and by extension to rescue college composition along with him.
Zwagerman points out that the public is readily seduced by complaints that students today are ill-taught and incompetent. Really, the public loves complaints about anything that starts with "kids today" and ends with praise for the way things used to be. This prejudice by many readers, who happen also to be people who vote for or against things like funding for public education, is catered to by the blogger, Stanley Fish, who then uses this view's popularity to advance his own agenda, which seems to be that education in composition should be effete and useless, devoid of politics, and reducible to a strange sort of art that admires itself in the mirror for the perfection of its irrelevance.
There is a strange sort of classism throughout Fish's blog, if Zwagerman's portrayal is apt. Fish seems to value the sort of education only someone who is due to inherit so much money that no marketable skills are needed could want, and then wants this person to turn around and flaunt the ability to make language do pretty tricks while saying nothing as proof of exorbitant wealth. It's a sort of showing off by proving one has enough to be wasteful, except instead of burning money, what is proposed is creating grammars and languages that exist for only the strictly academic and entirely unpolitical purpose of demonstrating an ability to create grammars and languages. As Zwagerman points out, Fish desires to strip composition not only of politics and thus rhetoric but in fact of composition itself.
I suspect had I encountered Fish's blog before I'd read Zwagerman's article, I might have fallen into the trap of attributing to evil what can be explained by incompetence. But Zwagerman points out that Fish's effect defeats Fish's apparent purpose, and also calculates the percentage of the blog's comments that call (directly or indirectly) for the abolition of College English altogether, up to and including any weird non-composition classes Zwagerman would like to see that involve only hypothetical grammar in place of actual composition.
Kathleen Crowley - Part Two
ReplyDeleteZwagerman, Sean; "Local Examples and Master Narratives: Stanley Fish and the Public Appeal of Current-Traditionalism". College Composition and Communication, Vol. 66, No. 3, Feb. 2015
Reading this article made me consider what we have been discussing throughout the semester: the purpose, evaluation and teaching of writing. I expect that I will read it several more times yet, because on each rereading I have more ideas about what these are, at least to me. On the issue of politicizing composition classes, I understand the qualms some of the voting public has in terms of paying their tax money to indoctrinate students in a possibly to them unpalatable sort of politics. Yet Zwagerman points out that it's impossible to have apolitical rhetoric, because the reasoning and argument part of rhetoric needs a relevant subject. I'm still most pleased with the solution my high school employed: Teachers gave no credit for blind regurgitation and extra credit for reasoned disagreement with them. Thus, we could politick as much as our compositions could require, mastering logos, pathos and ethos, but we were not indoctrinated. We could chose any direction of argument, and had no promise of better grades if we flattered teachers by pandering to their political preferences.
The article, in my opinion, is vitally important, and not for its exploration of the pitting of current-traditionalism against expressivism, but for its exploration of how the voting public might be engaged to support public education rather than denying it funding due to a perception of incompetence and irrelevance.
You're just in love with the sound of your own voice. The only people who will ever appreciate your blathering are intellectuals. Learn to write simply. You'll reach a wider audience. Learn to be kind. Karma is a bitch. As are you.
DeleteKarl Bozeman
ReplyDeletePART TWO
useful?
No.
Heck no.
If anything, this article has damaged the conversation and should removed for the impairment it has caused.
First a couple of observations.
Most downloaded.
Most cited.
The article was published in 2010, making the article effectively old.
The authors make the claim that both Facebook and Myspace are word-dominant sites, effectively excluding the audio/visual mediums these sites provide.
The majority of the sources used in the article are written previous to 2005. The IPhone, and effectively the smartphone movement didn’t happen until 2006 , this means that the majority of the sources used never had the chance to consider these social networking platforms from it’s current interface and medium.
The authority of the authors also come into question because they use phrases like “have you Myspaced?” They effectively show that they don’t interact with the medium.
They fail to mention the critical use of the hashtag, which came out four years prior to the article’s publishing. The claims of the authors were that the networks themselves naturally developed “nodes”. For example if you were watching a “facebook map” during the Superbowl, then naturally, you would find a lot of post about the Superbowl, those post would build into a node. (Seems pretty redundant, I know) But you could look for other nodes to know what the Facebook world was interested in talking about. This is still true, but only possible because of the use of the hashtag. The hashtags are the nodes themselves. The authors completely leave this integral element out of the equation.
They don’t even mention YouTube when talking about online mediums and students.
As a historical piece, this article might have flown by exploring the mediums in their early contexts and their impressions upon that time, but as an authoritative voice in the current conversation this article falls too flat.
---
But there is a bright side.
People do want to talk about this. Despite the article irrelevancies, it really is the most downloaded and most cited article that Comp + Comp has. This article is important because it begins to engage a conversation most wouldn’t have otherwise. And that has to be worth something.
Thanks for your insight, Karl - I'll be sure not to read the article!
DeleteIt seems like the entire thesis for this article was stale; we've pretty much established that Facebook is the high and mighty premium for young, internet-savvy youth. If the article had been written in 2000, I could understand, but it's too bad the authors didn't check out Twitter before they commenced writing!
I read the article, A Textbook Argument: Definitions of Argument in Leading Composition Textbooks by Abby Knoblauch. Knoblauch examined the definitions and practices of argument in popular composition textbooks and concluded that those texts seemed to only promote argumentation as a tool, limited to persuasion. Knoblauch also argues that though academia tells students that argumentation can be used to accomplish understanding, arguments often fail to create change. Outside of academia, argumentation is not even the preferred method of persuasion by governments, and other people in power seeing how wars and violence often replace it. Knoblauch quotes Jennifer Bay's response essay to the 2001 September 11 attacks called, "The Limits of Argument," in showing an alternative to argumentation. ". . . what we need to grasp is an emergent alternative to argument. which, which we understand to be equally or more persuasive, but which re configures the structure of the statement for generative ends." I think that one alternative to the way argumentation is currently taught is to provide students with policy debate classes. I participated in policy debate in high school, and the structure of policy debate really helped me in all of my English classes, not just English 102. Knoblauch also argued that many of the teachers teaching classes like ENG 101/102 are not masters of argumentation themselves. Often times, they rely on textbooks to teach them on how to teach their students. I think that Knoblauch made many good points about the way argumentation is taught, and why it is not effective. Like I states before, I think that policy debate would help students better understand argumentation and its potential to provoke change. Also, I agree with her point about how students are taught in ENG 101 that they must inform, but in ENG 102, they must refute and persuade. In debate, my goal was always to inform in order to persuade. They weren't two separate objectives. Maybe this is the first change that needs to occur in reevaluating how argumentation is taught.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with the author, arguments can't be taught just the use of textbooks. I student needs to experience a debate; a student should be pressured to argue their point, and even understand that they are wrong. Compromises can come from arguments, depending on how well you argue. Back in high school I took mock trial which like debate club. I wast taught to argue using the knowledge I had received while giving valid points why my argument was valid. I believe that most students should have an experience like this to get a good idea to make students understand how to make valid arguments.
DeleteIs it possible that modern man is simply afraid of conflict? Have we been habituated to avoid discomfort? I think that those two questions could point to the underlying issue.
DeleteI read the article Emplacing Mobile Composing Habits: A Study of
ReplyDeleteAcademic Writing in Networked Social Spaces by Stacey Pigg from the College Composition and Communication journal. This article looks at two different students that work in two different work spaces. One is the technology commons on the college campus, the other is a coffee shop. Both students have internet access and are socially accessible by other people. The article is calling for more research to be done on the importance of not only the writing process itself, but the materials, location, and time-use that is involved in student writing. What Pigg found from recording and interviewing these two students was through the use of laptops they were able to create a work space outside of the classroom and their home where they were able to efficiently work on and complete school work. Both students allowed for "interruptions" such as emails, text messages, or other social media messages, but these were short in duration and gave both students time to recuperate and get back into their work.
This article is relevant because as the author points out, professor may have an idea of the writing process that took place for these students to get the work they did, but what is not being considered is the space and materials needed for these students to create the type of work they are producing.
We have read several articles in class that discuss the writing process, whether it be pre-writing exercises, or getting into the "right" frame of mind through meditation or other practices that expressivists may prescribe, or even the editing process. What might be just as important is what we need as far as materials, location, and time use in order to be productive writers. This article gives a look at how complex the writing process is as far as the writers spacial needs in order to be an accomplished writer or in this case student.
I absolutely agree that spacial awareness when writing is critical to the process. I don't know if further research would yield any useful information as it is such a personal issue. Each writer must find the method that works best for them at the time. This need could shift form project to project and person to person. I could, of course, be full of weapons grade Bologna but that's just the way I see it.
DeleteI agree that environment selection is critical to writing success. In class we do focus a lot of our attention on, as you say, the writing process, but I agree that we could benefit from spending more time on less fluid avenues of thinking. Before the technology revolution, writing with natural implements was inherently mobile, but the advent of word processing kind of restricted us to certain locations. Due to widening Internet access, we're witnessing the return of composition mobility, and that is a very good thing.
DeleteBlow on!...winds of change!
ReplyDeleteThe article I chose to review was “Reforming the Method: An Invitation to Enchantment” by Kyle Jensen published in the JAC (Journal of Composition Theory). The crux of Jensen argument is a comparison between literary theories postulated by Giorgio Agamben and Carlo Sini. Jensen states that the main purpose of his essay “…will gauge the role that Agamben’s and Sini’s work might play in rhetoric and composition scholarship concerned with method and methodology.”(Jensen, pg. 324) In addition Jensen asserts that because Sini’s work focuses on form and production it is slightly more important than Agamben’s work. It is however important to note that Jensen believes that both rhetorician’s works are vital to reforming certain accepts of the rhetorical field of compositional theory. According to Jensen, Agamben frames his assertion is the same vain as Maxine Hairston’s “Winds of Change” as they seek to reconstruct the underpinning of the existing paradigm. Agamben indicates that whether by intent or design the existing discourse has an inherent power structure that pushes non-conforming data to the outskirt of the discourse community. In other words there is an internal regime of power that officiates some data to perpetuate its own agenda and existence. Agamben explains that Foucault’s application of the penopticon as an analogy for the current state of discourse is in itself a mechanism of power. Therefore all such uses of language should be examined carefully. It is then the scholar’s responsibility to point out such structures of power and put them within historical context. According to Jensen the dominant paradigm in compositional rhetoric is the mother-teacher paradigm. Jensen plainly states that “Nevertheless, I am hold that rhetoric and composition scholars must become more assiduous in studying this pervasive “idea”…” (Jensen, pg. 326) Sini’s contribution to this area of discourse is the “reformation” section of Jensen’s titled goal of “invitation”. Sini’s main propose is the production of knowledge in the field of rhetoric with the teleological end of classroom application. In order to facilitate this classroom application, Sini argues, that it is necessary to shift from an oral literacy to one that focuses on a literary culture. This would then become the signature of the new paradigm and would be a language that is par excellence. To put it in a more straightforward manner educators should focus on the expression and idea rather than the mode and mechanics of language. The mechanics are secondary to the discourse itself.
This article is relevant to the conversation on discourse and adds an interesting aspect to the conversation. Jensen builds a solid argument but at times tries a little too hard to display his understanding of the discourse. The article could be consider important because it does reinforce some of the calls for change in the classroom and methods teaching writing. Although Jensen doesn’t have a direct call for action, after all it is just a literary review essay, it does demonstrate that scholars are having this conversation. This implies that there is a certain amount of introspection within the field. This conversation is vital to the process of growth and self-awareness. It displays that there is a process of reformation of change and growth and that the field is not a stygian pit of academic backwater or a matter for ivory tower eggheads. It is matter that should matter to every writer. The winds or change will always blow.