Winsor
Winsor’s article made a lot of sense to me. I have worked with engineers for years and have been surprised in the past that they think the writing they do is separate from design work, and that it is a linear process. In reality they were always taking notes, revising those notes, re-writing requirements based on something learned in research, etc. In some cases they even had to revise a design based on information that was going to go in the user manual that brought design problems to light. The writing and the design process were quite codependent in most cases.
It was interesting to me how the subjects of this study worked so cohesively together on their ideas. I wonder if this is true of most engineering students, i.e. they are taught to do this, or if these particular students enjoyed a special rapport.
Reynolds
What I found most interesting about the Reynolds article was not the article itself, but rather the information about bell hooks. Somehow I managed to read several paragraphs about her before I noticed that her name was not capitalized. At first I thought it was a typo, but then I decided, given the subject matter, it had to be a personal statement on being either a woman or a minority, or both. I had to look this up, and was actually surprised to see that it was to distinguish her name from her grandmother’s, and to emphasize that what she wrote was important, not who she was. I have to wonder though, if there is some background rhetoric at work here – a minority feminist author could certainly pack a lot of meaning into choosing to avoid capitalization in her name!
Haswell
This was an interesting piece that brought up a lot of good points. The task of finding an ideal way to grade student writing seems overwhelming to me, but Haswell seems to have a good start and explains a lot of methods very well. The one thing that bothered me was that although he seems to admit that his method of minimal marking is flawed because it may not actually reduce work if students do not find the correct errors, he then goes on to defend it by saying that if teachers do not recorrect the paper, they are lazy and perhaps cruel (p. 1281). This seems a bit unfair – if he’s trying to make a time-saving method, then it must actually be more efficient, and calling the teachers lazy does not really make it a better idea.
Showing posts with label creative writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creative writing. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)