Miller
Miller’s question of why people read blogs bears some scrutiny. She lists several reasons but didn’t mention the reasons I read blogs, and suspect some others do to. The first is for entertainment, and the second is to find people I feel I can connect with (even though I have no intention of ever contacting them). I definitely agree with the common interest reason though – I have noticed I read a lot more blogs since I had a child, and most of these are the “mommy” blogs or other humorous looks at parenting. As an added bonus they usually contain some pretty good tips (who knew sunscreen will take Sharpie marker off of human skin?).
Atkinson
I enjoyed reading Atkinson’s article, particularly the points on progressivism. The information from Kalantzis and Cope reminded me of the debates about the cultural bias of standardized tests. It does seem that progressivist pedagogy may have some issues if it does indeed favor those who are more “mainstream.” The closing quote really made me think, and I think framed the issue very rhetorically.
Durst
This article pointed out a lot of things that might affect a student’s writing. I hadn’t really considered how instructors might use community service in combination with writing to help them grow academically as well as empathetically, but it seems like a good idea. I would be interested in seeing some studies on this: whether it affects writing style, whether the students’ writing is affected based on whether they agree with the cause, etc. It seems like the sort of thing that might be polarizing, depending on the cause, and could possibly get quite a reaction from some people which could be seen in their writing, for good or bad.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Week 7
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.
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.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Week 6 Readings
Brooke
I thought this was one of the most engaging articles we have been assigned so far. Brooke’s study really interested me. His interpretation of student activities that, on the surface, appear disruptive, was very eye-opening. It is very interesting that the students were so often engaged in something that was associated with the class, instead of ignoring it completely and engaging in some totally unrelated activity. It seems these students are interested in the subject, although they do not always buy the method or specific activity. If this is really the way students function, it seems that collaborative learning is indeed a good classroom solution, and that teachers should provide guidance but let students learn in the way that is best for them.
Trimbur
Tribur’s idea that using the consensus of collaborative learning to identify gaps and, in fact, foster dissensus was interesting. I’m not sure I think it would really work this way, particularly in light of Brooke’s study in which students were discussing what they could do to get by or give the teacher what he/she wanted to create less work for themselves. However, it does seem to be an idea that deserves more study. The last paragraph confused me some – it seems that Tribur does not think that collaborative learning will work as a long-term educational model – did I read that wrong? Since he seems to favor many aspects of collaborative learning, I found this an odd view to express.
Harris
I like Harris’s idea that students should be encouraged toward an awareness of the discourses they use, instead of trying to force everyone into one “correct” discourse. Awareness would probably go a long way toward helping people with “correct” English, in my view. Many people are unaware of their particular dialect, but if they are aware they are more likely to be able to adapt their language usage based on the situations in which they find themselves, and the people with whom they are interacting.
I thought this was one of the most engaging articles we have been assigned so far. Brooke’s study really interested me. His interpretation of student activities that, on the surface, appear disruptive, was very eye-opening. It is very interesting that the students were so often engaged in something that was associated with the class, instead of ignoring it completely and engaging in some totally unrelated activity. It seems these students are interested in the subject, although they do not always buy the method or specific activity. If this is really the way students function, it seems that collaborative learning is indeed a good classroom solution, and that teachers should provide guidance but let students learn in the way that is best for them.
Trimbur
Tribur’s idea that using the consensus of collaborative learning to identify gaps and, in fact, foster dissensus was interesting. I’m not sure I think it would really work this way, particularly in light of Brooke’s study in which students were discussing what they could do to get by or give the teacher what he/she wanted to create less work for themselves. However, it does seem to be an idea that deserves more study. The last paragraph confused me some – it seems that Tribur does not think that collaborative learning will work as a long-term educational model – did I read that wrong? Since he seems to favor many aspects of collaborative learning, I found this an odd view to express.
Harris
I like Harris’s idea that students should be encouraged toward an awareness of the discourses they use, instead of trying to force everyone into one “correct” discourse. Awareness would probably go a long way toward helping people with “correct” English, in my view. Many people are unaware of their particular dialect, but if they are aware they are more likely to be able to adapt their language usage based on the situations in which they find themselves, and the people with whom they are interacting.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Week 5 Readings
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)