Bruffee
Brufee’s views on collaborative learning brought up some interesting points for me. I can definitely see how collaborative learning has a place in the modern classroom. I recently attended a Project Management seminar in which we talked about different generations and their particular styles of working. Gen Y, the students currently in college and entering the work force, were identified as needing the most emotional validation, but also as the best team workers. It makes sense that a generation with a heavy reliance on their peers and the ability to work well in a team or group would also be able to learn well in a collaborative setting. I can’t say it is my ideal situation in many cases, but it does make sense for some people, and the current crop of students appears to thrive in just such an environment.
In response to Brufee’s assertion that collaborative learning can be “the blind leading the blind,” I would agree with that if the students were left with absolutely no supervision. However, a professor could still have a highly collaborative class while still providing enough guidance to keep students on task and on topic. In a collaborative environment, the professor becomes a guide instead of an instructor.
Hartwell
I found the study Hartwell discussed on p. 578 particularly interesting. I would expect to see different errors in the writing of non-native speakers of English based on their native language and its similarity to English. Hartwell points out that this is not the case. It is very interesting that mastery of spoken English is so different than mastery of written English. I suppose it must be because when speaking we tend to ignore many of the conventions that we are used to putting in writing (or think we ought to put in writing). So should we try to speak more correctly, or relax our standards for writing? I’m not sure. Most people’s conversational English, while not necessarily correct, flows easily and is readily understood (not so in some cases though!). In fact, if they spoke in an entirely grammatically correct manner, it would likely seem stilted. I’m not willing to give up on standards for written grammar yet, but this did give me some food for thought.
Berlin
I was surprised by Berlin’s description of cognitive psychology and its claim that it is possible for rhetoric to be objective/neutral. In my view, rhetoric always has a persuasive element, so it would be nearly impossible for it to be objective. Most of this article seemed like common sense to me – of course we must teach students to look for the ideological elements of rhetoric – ideology is inherently a part of rhetoric.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Week 4 Readings
Fulkerson
Fulkerson’s article helped me identify some of the things that have been bothering me about the way writing is taught. He classifies writing as expressive, mimetic, rhetorical and formalist. In many of the articles we have been reading, it seems that formalist writing is belittled in favor of expressive, mimetic and rhetorical. While I understand the emphasis on rhetorical writing – it is, indeed, quite important to be able to communicate accurately and effectively to your audience – I do not necessarily believe that expressive and mimetic writing are more important than formalism. To me, grammar and spelling are still important.
After reading this article, I believe the reason I feel this way is because formalist and rhetorical writing are the two forms I see as most important to technical writing, as opposed to creative writing. However, creative writing is what is usually taught in high school English classes and freshman composition classes. Since many of these articles regard how to teach or improve freshman comp classes, they naturally devalue formalist writing. While their emphasis now makes more sense to me, I still do not agree with it. Without formalism, English devolves into unstructured, no-rules drivel that can be so hard to read that it interferes with the conveyance of the message.
Hairston
I like Hairston’s description of the new paradigm for teaching writing. Stating everything clearly in a numbered list really makes it easy to understand. However, while this paradigm seems lovely, I feel quite sorry for any instructor trying to grade a paper using this. How is your average freshman comp teacher supposed to be able to, for example, adequately evaluate how a work meets the audience’s needs and the author’s intention? And how would they find the time? While this paradigm seems like a good idea in theory, I think it is impractical at best and impossible at worst in practice.
Fulkerson’s article helped me identify some of the things that have been bothering me about the way writing is taught. He classifies writing as expressive, mimetic, rhetorical and formalist. In many of the articles we have been reading, it seems that formalist writing is belittled in favor of expressive, mimetic and rhetorical. While I understand the emphasis on rhetorical writing – it is, indeed, quite important to be able to communicate accurately and effectively to your audience – I do not necessarily believe that expressive and mimetic writing are more important than formalism. To me, grammar and spelling are still important.
After reading this article, I believe the reason I feel this way is because formalist and rhetorical writing are the two forms I see as most important to technical writing, as opposed to creative writing. However, creative writing is what is usually taught in high school English classes and freshman composition classes. Since many of these articles regard how to teach or improve freshman comp classes, they naturally devalue formalist writing. While their emphasis now makes more sense to me, I still do not agree with it. Without formalism, English devolves into unstructured, no-rules drivel that can be so hard to read that it interferes with the conveyance of the message.
Hairston
I like Hairston’s description of the new paradigm for teaching writing. Stating everything clearly in a numbered list really makes it easy to understand. However, while this paradigm seems lovely, I feel quite sorry for any instructor trying to grade a paper using this. How is your average freshman comp teacher supposed to be able to, for example, adequately evaluate how a work meets the audience’s needs and the author’s intention? And how would they find the time? While this paradigm seems like a good idea in theory, I think it is impractical at best and impossible at worst in practice.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Week 3 Readings
Crowley
I have to say I never really thought much about the evolution of the inventional process in writing. However, after reading this article it does make sense that it would be defined in some way – I suppose it was never formally defined or dictated to me, and just seems like a logical way to proceed with writing. I definitely do not follow Scott and Denney’s steps as delineated in New Composition-Rhetoric (p. 339). I think I can safely say that I have never once chosen a title before composing a theme and writing an outline. In fact, I often choose a title after the paper is completely finished – I have a knack for totally unimaginative, painful titles, so I tend to procrastinate on the title until the last possible moment. I’m curious, does anyone else follow this method and choose a title early in the process? My personal process tends to go something like subject, narrow subject and develop theme while writing preliminary outline, add detail to outline, write, revise, choose painful title.
I tried the method with notecards, but am unable to stick to it on a regular basis. I just end up with a lot of notecards that I need to keep track of. The only time this really worked from me was when I was writing my thesis – I made notecards with all the direct quotes or ideas I might use, with the source information. I then put them in an electronic notecard program which allowed me to search and sort easily. It really helped for a large paper, but there is absolutely no way I would go to that much trouble for anything less than, say, 100 pages.
D’Angelo
I agree with D’Angelo that writing cannot necessarily be easily classified into one of the 19th-century modes of discourse. It seems that many works cross over into multiple modes of discourse, some even from paragraph to paragraph. In addition, some never fit neatly into any category. I do wonder, though, how critical it is to have this defined clearly. It does not seem nearly as important to me as finding a better way to teach, or defining “good writing.” I can see the usefulness, but not as a first-tier task.
Shaughnessy
I understand what Shaughnessy is saying about how beginning writers can be discouraged by teachers who concentrate too much on “correct” writing. However, proper grammar is an important element of the English language. It must be incorporated at some point, but if teaching grammar discourages writers, when should it be taught? Before students write, when they will have no real opportunity to practice? During writing class, but alongside a hefty dose of commentary and constructive criticism of the writing itself and not just grammar and spelling? After students have found their writing voice, but may be entrenched in language errors?
Perhaps I am somewhat insensitive to this since I never found grammar and spelling to be much of a problem. However, I become very discouraged with the idea that grammar is not important at all. It is a fundamental part of every language, and students must learn it! The problem is finding balance – teaching students grammar and spelling while still encouraging their love of the language and their writing skills. The class readings are definitely reminding me that there are many frustrating problems with teaching English and writing, many of which seem to have no clear-cut answers.
I have to say I never really thought much about the evolution of the inventional process in writing. However, after reading this article it does make sense that it would be defined in some way – I suppose it was never formally defined or dictated to me, and just seems like a logical way to proceed with writing. I definitely do not follow Scott and Denney’s steps as delineated in New Composition-Rhetoric (p. 339). I think I can safely say that I have never once chosen a title before composing a theme and writing an outline. In fact, I often choose a title after the paper is completely finished – I have a knack for totally unimaginative, painful titles, so I tend to procrastinate on the title until the last possible moment. I’m curious, does anyone else follow this method and choose a title early in the process? My personal process tends to go something like subject, narrow subject and develop theme while writing preliminary outline, add detail to outline, write, revise, choose painful title.
I tried the method with notecards, but am unable to stick to it on a regular basis. I just end up with a lot of notecards that I need to keep track of. The only time this really worked from me was when I was writing my thesis – I made notecards with all the direct quotes or ideas I might use, with the source information. I then put them in an electronic notecard program which allowed me to search and sort easily. It really helped for a large paper, but there is absolutely no way I would go to that much trouble for anything less than, say, 100 pages.
D’Angelo
I agree with D’Angelo that writing cannot necessarily be easily classified into one of the 19th-century modes of discourse. It seems that many works cross over into multiple modes of discourse, some even from paragraph to paragraph. In addition, some never fit neatly into any category. I do wonder, though, how critical it is to have this defined clearly. It does not seem nearly as important to me as finding a better way to teach, or defining “good writing.” I can see the usefulness, but not as a first-tier task.
Shaughnessy
I understand what Shaughnessy is saying about how beginning writers can be discouraged by teachers who concentrate too much on “correct” writing. However, proper grammar is an important element of the English language. It must be incorporated at some point, but if teaching grammar discourages writers, when should it be taught? Before students write, when they will have no real opportunity to practice? During writing class, but alongside a hefty dose of commentary and constructive criticism of the writing itself and not just grammar and spelling? After students have found their writing voice, but may be entrenched in language errors?
Perhaps I am somewhat insensitive to this since I never found grammar and spelling to be much of a problem. However, I become very discouraged with the idea that grammar is not important at all. It is a fundamental part of every language, and students must learn it! The problem is finding balance – teaching students grammar and spelling while still encouraging their love of the language and their writing skills. The class readings are definitely reminding me that there are many frustrating problems with teaching English and writing, many of which seem to have no clear-cut answers.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Week 2 Readings
Brereton
This article didn’t make much of an impression on me, except to note that 1) although various English departments seem to have different approaches and offerings, nobody seems to like teaching composition and 2) Professor Scott (the last one) seems really run down and tired, and I can’t blame him. The number of students to professors in this case is truly appalling. I wonder how the professors were ever able to provide adequate grading, let alone any time for students with questions. It is notable though that they seem to be designing custom courses for grad students, so that would seem to indicate that they are able to devote very, very little, if any, time to their undergrads.
Kitzhaber
The Kitzhaber article did a good job of explaining the various problems with freshman composition courses. The descriptions of various courses were enlightening, and I noticed particularly that while most of the descriptions advocated a reading component, sort of as an afterthought, one course specifically stated that reading was to be avoided because it interfered with composition. These course descriptions highlight the problems in defining the content that a composition course should cover – one of the many problems with these courses.
It is interesting that many of these courses seem to be considered almost remedial by the staff – something they don’t feel they should have to teach at all, perhaps, because the students should already come to college with the requisite skills. However, the problem is compounded by the fact that it is often taught by graduate students or new professors instead of the most experienced in the department. It is understandable why nobody wants to teach these courses, but it seems the problem will continue until the courses are made more effective by standardization, instruction by more qualified personnel, and, perhaps, more effort and background on the parts of the students themselves (although this, of course, is a “when Hell freezes over” prospect!).
Macrorie
I like the idea that children can be better writers than adults because they are telling the truth. I found the children’s writing hard to read because of the misspellings more than the grammar problems, but it is certainly more effective than the excessively wordy adult writing, and conveys a clearer message. I had never considered the idea that formal instruction in English could actually make a writer worse, but these examples do seem to show that can be the case. I really do hate the spelling errors though.
This article didn’t make much of an impression on me, except to note that 1) although various English departments seem to have different approaches and offerings, nobody seems to like teaching composition and 2) Professor Scott (the last one) seems really run down and tired, and I can’t blame him. The number of students to professors in this case is truly appalling. I wonder how the professors were ever able to provide adequate grading, let alone any time for students with questions. It is notable though that they seem to be designing custom courses for grad students, so that would seem to indicate that they are able to devote very, very little, if any, time to their undergrads.
Kitzhaber
The Kitzhaber article did a good job of explaining the various problems with freshman composition courses. The descriptions of various courses were enlightening, and I noticed particularly that while most of the descriptions advocated a reading component, sort of as an afterthought, one course specifically stated that reading was to be avoided because it interfered with composition. These course descriptions highlight the problems in defining the content that a composition course should cover – one of the many problems with these courses.
It is interesting that many of these courses seem to be considered almost remedial by the staff – something they don’t feel they should have to teach at all, perhaps, because the students should already come to college with the requisite skills. However, the problem is compounded by the fact that it is often taught by graduate students or new professors instead of the most experienced in the department. It is understandable why nobody wants to teach these courses, but it seems the problem will continue until the courses are made more effective by standardization, instruction by more qualified personnel, and, perhaps, more effort and background on the parts of the students themselves (although this, of course, is a “when Hell freezes over” prospect!).
Macrorie
I like the idea that children can be better writers than adults because they are telling the truth. I found the children’s writing hard to read because of the misspellings more than the grammar problems, but it is certainly more effective than the excessively wordy adult writing, and conveys a clearer message. I had never considered the idea that formal instruction in English could actually make a writer worse, but these examples do seem to show that can be the case. I really do hate the spelling errors though.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Week 1 Readings
Parker
Parker's description of English as the child of speech and linguistics is interesting, and certainly makes it easy to remember the history he is detailing, but it seems to me that he takes it a little too far – although he only writes about this for a couple of pages, by the time he moves on the metaphor seems a little tired. However, if he is using this metaphor to convey the hostility, or at least suspicion, between departments of speech, linguistics, and English, he has certainly done that well. I believe the reason the metaphor bothers me so much is that it conveys so much negativity.
I did enjoy his history of the teaching of English. I never considered that so much of literary criticism (even of English works) was conducted in Latin. It is also interesting that poetry was considered separately from other forms of literature. He makes a good point in showing how the increase in the number of universities was a reaction against elitism and exclusiveness, and that this same reaction caused an increase in the study of modern literature and language as opposed to only the classics.
It is somewhat ironic that freshman composition, the course no English professor seems to want to teach, is what finally enabled English professors and departments to become fully entrenched in the university structure. What is perhaps least important to English professors is the very thing that enabled their continued existence. This seems like a good parallel to the metaphor of English as the ungrateful child of speech and linguistics.
Horner
Horner makes a very interesting point in relating how religion affected the development of education in Britain. However, I did find it odd that the educational institutions that were exempt from religious edicts were the first to teach in English – it seems it would be important for future clerics to learn in English, since they would be trying to reach the English people with their message and the common people would be much more likely to relate to someone who was well versed in their various dialects and colloquialisms (however, I can also easily see how an association with religion would tie education to Latin).
I have to wonder what the purpose was for women to attend a university when they were (at first) not allowed to obtain a degree. Of course learning for its own sake is an admirable pursuit, but it doesn’t seem that a lot of women would have been able to take advantage of the availability of higher education since they would be incurring cost but would not receive any kind of degree or ability to advance. Was this just a way to warehouse women (I would assume upper-class) for a few years?
Parker's description of English as the child of speech and linguistics is interesting, and certainly makes it easy to remember the history he is detailing, but it seems to me that he takes it a little too far – although he only writes about this for a couple of pages, by the time he moves on the metaphor seems a little tired. However, if he is using this metaphor to convey the hostility, or at least suspicion, between departments of speech, linguistics, and English, he has certainly done that well. I believe the reason the metaphor bothers me so much is that it conveys so much negativity.
I did enjoy his history of the teaching of English. I never considered that so much of literary criticism (even of English works) was conducted in Latin. It is also interesting that poetry was considered separately from other forms of literature. He makes a good point in showing how the increase in the number of universities was a reaction against elitism and exclusiveness, and that this same reaction caused an increase in the study of modern literature and language as opposed to only the classics.
It is somewhat ironic that freshman composition, the course no English professor seems to want to teach, is what finally enabled English professors and departments to become fully entrenched in the university structure. What is perhaps least important to English professors is the very thing that enabled their continued existence. This seems like a good parallel to the metaphor of English as the ungrateful child of speech and linguistics.
Horner
Horner makes a very interesting point in relating how religion affected the development of education in Britain. However, I did find it odd that the educational institutions that were exempt from religious edicts were the first to teach in English – it seems it would be important for future clerics to learn in English, since they would be trying to reach the English people with their message and the common people would be much more likely to relate to someone who was well versed in their various dialects and colloquialisms (however, I can also easily see how an association with religion would tie education to Latin).
I have to wonder what the purpose was for women to attend a university when they were (at first) not allowed to obtain a degree. Of course learning for its own sake is an admirable pursuit, but it doesn’t seem that a lot of women would have been able to take advantage of the availability of higher education since they would be incurring cost but would not receive any kind of degree or ability to advance. Was this just a way to warehouse women (I would assume upper-class) for a few years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)