Log: Tonight I punctuate my summary.

September 30, 2007. 10:19 PM.
It's Sunday Night and my room is as dark as is visble. My computer is the only source of light as it dashes and dribbles along the walls, painting in wakes of warped silhouettes. I realize now again how odd that is, how my perception of what I see is that which makes things appear in such a way. There is no original swagger, only stiff form; inanimate and sticky symbols. Sticky is what stays when no permanence is attached to it. There is only nomadic meaning, the passing iconic forms from simple birth to delicate raindrop. Hmmmm..... where as any of that makes sense to thee, this is what today's article meant to me:

This most recent of essays under my review is titled " Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer" by Andrea A. Lunsford. So I first ask myself, what defines a basic writer? One assertion via the Lundsford article says that basic writers are not as cognitively competent as a more experienced writer, and that is what basically differentiates them. Furthermore, Lunsford says that this the reason they cannot perform analysis and synthesis effectively; that they find it difficult to direct or organize their opinions based on something that they had just read. Additionally, many theorist also suggest that the development of a higher cognitive level happens from first doing, then doing consciously, and only then formally conceptualizing. I disagree with the notion immediately, it doesn't account for the entire scope of cognitive variation and the many levels of cognition itself, it also ignores circumstantial barriers??? Lunsford might agree to disagree, saying that teachers should come up with ways for the students to be in constant practice....and ill I can think of is practice makes perfect!
In another article, yet again theoretical, there are four specific stages a teacher will transpose through as they synthesize their craft. The article, Mina P. Shaughnessy's "Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing", says the these stages are a fixture, even if unnoticed. The first stage is dubbed Guarding the Tower, it explains that the new teacher is focused on following protocol, defensive against anything that threatens it. When the teacher enters the second stage, called Converting the Natives, they realize that some specific students who are behind, can still catch up with the right instruction. In the third stage, Sounding the Depths, they are touched by their own tutorial endeavors as they begin to see improvements in their students writing, and start to see themselves as both writers and teachers . Lastly, called "Diving In", is basically when the teacher begins to seek a balance between what is most beneficial to some students and what is most ineffective.

Both of these essays are rigid and too suggestive. The first essay makes way too many assumptions about the human consciousness, and they dont make up for it when they insert their theories into a writer's behavioral composition. A lot like some kind of pyschological therapy. The second essay is probably worse. I can not believe there are seriously people out there trying to categorize the many levels that teachers pass through before they become elite instructors of composition. Adding my own metaphorical sarcasm, it reminded me of when they taught us about puberty and the intellect of an adolescent in the fifth grade.

i hope you enjoyed my post today, as I gave it as I have it a much absent and needed character.

10:50 PM.

today's collaborative jury: thoughts and opinions.

So I didn't blog for Friday again, because I had no idea what we're supposed to blog about. Now that's not an excuse to not participate, so I instead have decided to write a little bit about what we did in class today.
In class today we openly discussed how we thought the class and its structure was working, and how the different modes of communication for class are contributing to the overall course objectives.
So we decided that most of these modes are counterproductive because often times, they take away from the quality aspect of thing; that quality vs. quantity debate. For example, it takes long enough to read, summarize, and blog many of these articles that nobody really has time to comment on what their peers have to say. Individualistically, when you spend an hour working on your blog and nobody ever comments- it becomes somewhat disheartening.
We also discussed the tutor assignments and corresponding googlegroups. Personally, I think the tutor program is a good idea; although many of our 'clients' do not need much help, it facilitates a positive learning experience regardless of the kind of relationships that are being formed(which was also brought up in class). Many people had issues with the googlegroups and I totally agree. I think Katie brought up a good idea in suggesting that instead of trying to discuss things through the disarray of google's internet threads, we could just spend 15-20 minutes on Fridays conversing and sharing what we've been doing. Not only would this provide for a more personal exchange of ideas, but the interaction itself is necessary when working with tutors. I mean, we're not tutoring through google groups are we?
Just my thoughts so far, maybe more on this later. Stay classy Elmhurst.

what!!!

what are we supposed to blog about?!?! it's not in the anouncements page!

An Ong Response

Ong's article focuses on the relationship between writer and audience. He believes that this relationship is rhetorical in nature because it was preceded by oral discourse; which was characterized by said rhetoric. Being this, there was a natural lack of study in the roles between writer, his text, and a reader.
One thing I took specific attention to was Ong suggestion that to improve student writers, a fictional audience should be created. The goal of this, he says, is to help the student put himself past the teacher in terms of what his focus is. Obviously, many students can not writer to an audience which does not exist, so Ong says that the reader should cast the audience in a role, and the audience should fulfill the role. He can do this by manipulating the reader using simple language techniques such as: offering a sense of intimacy through style,(journal ect,), or by using terms that are specific to the audience. I find this interesting because eI have consciously considered these concepts when I am writing. I don't think this idea is applicable to everybody, but some students might respond very well to this kind of technique.

Ong also makes a good point by recognizing the weaknesses in written communication. Ong says that writing is an indirect form of communication because it can not accurately portray feelings, fervors, tones and so on. And because of this, it makes it more difficult for the writer to manipulate or sway his audience in comparison to an oral communicator. He does also say however, that writing is not necesarily less interesting, especially when considering the different ways the writer manipulate his own communication.

I found Ong's article interesting, but sort of difficult to follow. I understand what it was about, but I'm entirely sure how it really relates to what we've been talkinga bout recently.

another response

Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch’s ....“Pedagogy”.... is a counterpoint article in comparison to what we've been reading recently. Where as the 'process' that goes into composition, and how that process is taught has been the focus of our studies, Breuch's declares that this idea is reducing writing to "a series of codified phases that can be taught”. She seems to suggest that it makes writing almost automatic, a mechanized program that paradoxically inhibits the composition process. I can see where she is coming from, but for me, she didn't really transform my opinion. Her perspective seems to be from an expressionist, emphasizing a personal creativity and way of being. I myself believe that the writing process is great for composing, as long as it used as a guideline, rather than a literal interpretation. The "post- process" theory she presents is confusing because it is vague. What I do gather is that writing in this paradigm is supposed to be public, interpretive and situated. Writing is public because it is a communicative process, and I like that philosophy because it involves an audience. Writing is as well, very interpretive; some more so than others. Some writing is precise, some inspires abstract thought or entertainments. The notion that writing is situated goes without saying for me. It's a lot like saying luck is circumstantial, when of course, it is.
Over all, I like Bruesch's article because it is a different way at looking at composition, writing, and how its taught. Even if nobody agreed with her perspective, it should valued for its approach. Compositional theory, like any theoretical approach, is dependent upon such arguments to help guide writers to their eventual goals. For this reason, above all the content, I enjoyed the article.

Perl's The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers is an article which theorizes about the writing process, and what makes good writers. Perl specifically refers to a study which addresses three key questions about compositional processes: How do unskilled writers write? Can writing processes be analyzed in a systematic and replicable manner? and What does such a process says in regards to the ontological nature of composition, and how are future writers being educated? While attempting to answer these questions, the empirical study was able to chart, graph, and identify key elements in the compositional process. Specifically, they were able to analyze the data in standards and categories.
What the study concluded was as equally ground breaking as it was interesting. First and foremost participants in the study were found to be internalizing their writing and the process, much like self talk. This showed that although some writers are less skilled then others, everybody is practicing a unique and therefore complex writing routine. Moreover, because of this find, researchers were able to conclude that basic articulation and proficiency were more likely the cause of bad writing, not how it is approached(generally). One of the most useful findings was for teachers and educators in compositional fields because the quantitative research the study gathered was utilized to measure observable patterns in students methods. Therefore, more emphasis has been placed on the processes of writing, not so much the products.

This study is important because it revolutionized many aspects of how writing is taught, while paradoxically breaking it down it bits and pieces that can be better understood. For this reason, Perl's study is of high utility. Although many aspects of the study and the theories that follow are strictly objective, i think it allows for contextual interpretations in "off the grid" specific cases.

Donald M. Murray's Teach Writing as a Process Not a Product is an article that emphasizes the process of learning rather than the outcome. In terms of compositional education, he suggests that teachers shouldn't teach composition with the premise that the process will yield a product, but rather the process is the product. In the most simplest of terms, Murray notes "the process can be put to work to produce a product which may be worth your reading." When composing a paper of any variety, the process is paramount to the outcome not just because it precedes that specific paper, but because it is the framework we will use in every paper we write . Specifically, using a well constructed process can make your paper more organized, better articulated, and more interpretable . According to Murray, Prewriting, Writing, and Rewriting are the three stages of any writing process. I myself was taught this guideline in grade school school and it has been repetitively retaught to me since. I still use this process today because it is elemental to my ability to translate my thoughts, research, and ideas in type.

Janet Emig's article Writing as a Mode of Learning, distinguishes the similarities and differences between listening, talking, reading and writing. According to Emig, talking is a natural behavior, but writing is something that is learned, and more "even an impressible behavior". Her article then relates to Murray's philosophies in that writing is more a process while talking is not, because talking is something much more innately endowed to us. I agree with this notion to most extents. Although talking is a more responsive and communicable type of communication, writing is more concise because of said processes. Generally, speaking is a display for the passionate and for those who can express themselves subliminally. However, I believe that writing distinguishes itself from speaking because it is more creative and illuminates the specific characters in all of us.

History of Writing Instruction: Summary

(1) economic, political and social changes, and (2) changes in curriculum and teaching methods for one of the following time periods discussed in Berlin's article:

Between 1975 and 1985, great change was taking place in America. The liberal chords of the 60s and 70s were being broken by a more Conservative lifestyle headed by the Nixon and Reagan Administrations. These administrations smashed the protest movements of the former with political policy and social instruction.
Schools around the nation were being held "accountable for the products" they were producing for the work force; students were viewed as a commodity. During this time, national achievement tests were introduced to measure said commodities, which ultimately led to a decline in educational writing instruction. Teachers began to model there curriculum's around these tests, and as Daniel Koretz put it " After all, machine graded, fill0in the blank tests do not require writing ability". During this time, writing and compositional instruction was virtually extinct at all levels of education. Ironically enough, Reagan's national education policy blamed the schools for the nations economic failures, while in turn giving his administration credit for any success.
Eventually, teachers all over began to fill the writing-compositional void. The first organization of note was the National Writing Project which was a program which taught teachers how to teach english composition. Most notably, it was taught by teachers to instruct others teachers. The teacher-as-researcher phenomenom sought to re-establish the teachers role in the classroom. It emphasized the attention of ethnographic techniques and cultural contexts, this allowed for an approach to writing that was equally prepared for issues of class, race, and gender. Finally, the whole language approach declared composition an inherently social and democratic process. Teachers who adopted this method were less interested in cognitive and emotional processes, and more interested in the social nature of learning; that reading, writing, speaking, and listening should be integrated as one experience.
As the workplace began transforming with the coming information age, its demands began changing. English composition became responsive to these demands, forming the agenda of a primitive discipline not seen before. As Complicated bureaucratic decision making was now requiring more compositional skills than ever before, this discipline became divided into three paradigms: Cognitive rhetoric took a strictly empirical approach to writing, expressionism, which implored writing as a deeply personal act, and social constructionism, which stated collaborative writing was elemental in any composition.

Excersice#2

In the Introduction to "They say/I say": the Moves that Matter in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Catchy Birkenstein provide templates designed to organize thoughts so writers could better articulate what they are trying to say. Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein argue that the types of writing templates they offer help many writers focus on more than just what is being said, but rather by arranging structured rhetorical concepts. As the authors themselves put it, " the templates in this book can be paticularly useful for students who are unsure about waht to say, or who have trouble finding enough to say, often because they see their own beliefs as so self evident they need not be argued for." Although some people believe that writing is a talent that some of us may never have, Graff and Birkenstein insist that anyone can be good at writing by expressing their thoughts and mastering a certain inventory of writing tactics. In sum, their view is that writing is a lot like anything else, it just takes practice.
I have mixed feelings. In my view, the type of templates that the authors recommend will most definitely help many students become better writers, but will undoubtedly exclude other writers who have other problems. For instance, some writers may have interesting things to say and may be able to organize their thoughts well, but they do not have an interesting way of presenting their final work. In addition, other students may simply lack the motivation to become good writers. Some might object of course, on the ground that I myself have no place critisizng professionals. Yet I would argue that although I may not be an expert in writing, I know enough to know that it takes more to be a good writer than the right ideas, templates, and organization. Overall, then, I believe that this book is a good book for many writers- an important point to make given the lack of solid writing I see in many of my peers.