how far i've come....

Today was a productive day for me because I was able to better organize my arguments. In terms of how I want to approach this topic: political rhetoric. For a while I was trying to revolve around the structure and meaning of political rhetoric, defining what it is. Today, I began exploring more than just theory- but the practical application of it. By this I mean more than just what we see on TV in large scale speeches, debates and other political happenings- but in every day social interactions. I am discovering the political rhetoric in every day life. I only wrote a paragraph or so, but I was able to write down more notes and structural ideas for this paper.

Revising Plan

My revision plan:
1) I need to make by annotations more concise in terms of how I am using each source for my research. All I need to do is specifically recognize what I will be using from each source, and why, and then add that to my annotations.
2) Alphabetical order! I forgot to put my sources in alphabetical order under each of my caratogies. Easily fixable.
3) I think I might also make some edits to the format of my bibliograph. I am rested in my introduction, but I am not sure if I want my sources to stay catagorized as they already are. However, I am also not sure how else I want to catagorize them?

we'll see. cheers.

Annotations Discussions

Chilton, Paul A. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Hobsbawm, E J. Politics for a Rational Left; Political Writing, 1977-1988. New York: Verso, 1989.

I think this is correct, aside from second line indentation of 1989.

These sources are from two books that I have checked out via A.C. Buehler library. Actually, they're from Loyola, and I was able to get them through A.C. Buehler in a matter of a few days. I have til December 13. Not bad!

The Tutoring Practicum:Discussion Nov. 02

So I made it to class today despite being late, and im glad I did....

We had a little discussion in the library about the tutoring practicum thus far. I just wanted to say that the time we spent there was more productive than all of the time I've spent tutoring thus far. I tihnk if there is something to be gained here, its that we can best apply theory with the people who are being taught it. Now we didn't actually talk about compositional theory, but I think that our discussion about its application(or lack of) was stirring enough.
Many of us are having issues with this whole thing. I see the engine behind the steam, but I think the whole thing lacks the fuel. People aren't going to be motivated to do anything unless there is some kind of interdependency happening. I would be totally willing to help someone out with their writing if they really sincerely wanted it, if they came to me under their own steam. But its just not that way and its not going to be unless these people really want to be good writers. I really believe its that mundane.

We ran out of time, so I just wanted to get that out there.

Factness: fact of facts.

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question? What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)


What question needs factness? For in fact, a question is no fact, it is a merely the quest of answering the question, and therefor, discovering the fruitful nature of truth.

1) Anyways, I could find information regarding factness from many sources. Being that my topic is political discourse, and more specifically, rhetoric, I could ask many sources including but not limitted to: political theorists(if I could locate one), professors of politics, law makers, rhetoric instructors(English-Comp) and even philosophers. These people and more could definitely help provide the factness I need for my research.

2) Reading is a great way to learn. As I'm sure most of my peers would agree, our entire research is dependent upon what texts we can find. For my topic, I think the best types of sources would be other research papers. Ideally, I would like to draw upon research that has already been done so that I could further it with my own. I could also turn to historical documents, documents containing subliminal clues to how political discourse has evolved. I may also be inclined to dust off the archaic books of the first political philosophers and founders of rhetoric. Everyone from Plato to Aristotle to more modern names like Trimbur, Royser, and O'Rourke(shout out).

3) What else could I do to discover factness? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is to explore what is known to not be fact, or that which is known to be false. I'm not entirely sure how best to go about this without said methords, but I could try drawing information from other media sources such as radio and TV. I could also cross reference two or more sources, looking for logic, and rational congruency. If two sources are talking about the same thing, but stating different facts about both, that would be a clear signal that something is false. My objective would then be to discover which parts from which sources are wrong.

I don't know. That's all I have right now.

Collaboration is bad?

Trimbur's article critsizes collaborative learning. He notes that group think/talk supresses individualistic creations and conditions learners to conform. I think this is a very good point. Especially in the compositional field, individual thoughts and opinions are essential; stylystically- how would things be if everyone was writing about the same kinds of things, in the same kind of way? He seems to be suggesting that collaborative learning and group think debases subjectivity. Maybe not to the extent of internalized thought, but moreover, in a way that facilitates almost a 'hive' like thinking.
I have to say, this is one of the more interesting articles I've read. I think its important for academia and theorists alike to sometimes go against the grain, raising new issues and questions for others to consider. I wouldn't go as far to say that Trimbur is exactly right as his notions are more extreme predicitions than what would probably be realistic happenings. First of all, so much of the way we learn is through experience and the happenings of everyday life. This type of vivid experience is sheer fact and certainly individualistic. I think that if all learning was in fact collaborative, everything about our world around us would change. Culture would have to be collectivist in nature, and law would most likely be a product of a socialist society.

Revisiting the Inquiry Project.

When people consider my topic, the first thing that comes to their minds is probably a feeling of disgust. I don't think most people like the muddiness of political discourse. One of the biggest issues regarding it is probably corruption, or corruptability. How much of political discourse is just 'fluff', or deceitful. What techniques might one master to acheive these kinds of dark rhetoric? How and why has it come to be what we know it as?
I think these questions would differ from the scholarly discourse community. Most scholars would probably agree the political language, at its core, is in fact an art form. It's not all lies and cover-ups, and even still, it takes knowledge to master. I think it is universally accepted that political discourse is a form of rhetoric. It is a dirty discourse because once mastered, it used to woo and sway the masses for good and bad reasons, even if contradicting the principles which supported it. I think most people would say political discourse, or rhetoric, is not taught thoroughly enough even through the college level. Unless you're majoring in English, Composition, or communication, most people will never really know what it actually is.

Most of the people that produce text about my topic are politicians; be they theorists, professors, or acting party members. Objectively, I think the goal of political discourse is to persaude rather than inform. But on a much more subjective level I think writer's of political discourse are flexing their own muscles, so they themselves may be affected. Supporting such a notion may seem groundless, but when examining any political text, one is often left with the sense that it is deeply personal.

Exploration Appropriation

1: Political Discourse as a discipline
2. I often find myself motivated by good politics, and it keeps my involved. I want to know why- what makes this kind of discouse different than typical rhetorical messages ect.
3. I believe Political Language is different than regular discourse. Although it uses aspects of pathos, ethos, and logos- there is some other kind of intangible aspect that goes into a good political message, be it a canidacy speech to a state of the union adress. I believe that some politicians are endowed with this special kind of voice that connects with his/her audience.
4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic? Not much. I know that it uses pathos, ethos, and logos. I know that there is a special articulation used, a special way words, voice, and audience are selected.
5. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?
I'm interested in the way Political Discourse is interpreted by audiences. How does Political language channel messages? What makes for good political composition, how is it evaluated? What is it about this kind of discipline that influence people and ideas? What connects one idea to entire societies? What is the relationship between this discipline and political awareness in general?
6. How might composition theorists and researchers approach or study this topic? Does this approach differ from those of other related disciplines (such as communication studies)?
I think the best research for this kind of topic is both in historical documents and contemperary observations. By comparing what has been done and what is being done, enough knowledge can be gained to answer some questions. I think it is important to specifically examine notorious documents and speeches to see what parallels can be drawn from them. I think the findings are best analyzed via comp theory, comm theory, and political theory methods; because in this case they are intertwined.
7. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)? I could interview people from the world around me, asking them about what makes a good political message: Why do they come to support/believe the things they do? I could observe political debates, the feedback, and the professional analysis that follows suit.

Part II: FocusingWrite an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.

Political Discourse is a means of rhetorical langauge. It is a unique kind of language because it's meaningmight often be assigned after the message is already delivered; via how it is interpreted by audiences from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs. What makes political discourse a discipline in terms of three elements: composition, communication, and politics.



if ANYONE has any ideas, thoughts, or feedback please let me know. I know I want to explore this topic, but im not entirely sure on what I want to specifically focus on. As of right now, I just have general ideas. Your opinions would be appreciated!

in class writing: 10/17/07

I can't really think of anything specific which would illustrate Royster's point. Ihave never been involved in such a discourse which crosses communal boundaries. Instead, I can say that my only subjective violations in the academic setting have occured when my morality has been challenged. So I guess in some small way, this eludes to what Royster is getting at. I have never left America and therefore, am not myself a minority here. My ethnic roots can be traced back to Ireland and Germany, but what is to say about that? Not much. I know that many of my relatives may have probably experienced what Royster refers to, but this still does not put me into a posture in which I can empathetically understand. Although I thought her article was at times counter-productive,I understand what her point is. No, I have never experienced the kind of violation she refers to, suffice to say that I do someday wish to experience it.

To answer your questions, I think her experiences reveal the obvious for me. That people can always be subdivided into different vocal communities, by which discourse outside of the communities may go misunderstood. Conversely, the community itself will be subjected to academic shelling. That difference however, I believe, should not be discarded as wasteful. Despite the subjective harm that may come from such a violation, I think it is what makes society great. I believe that this is how we learn to understand each other, and in doing so, human nature. This is what is to be gained. It is only lost if we neglect the things we experience or the stories were hear- this is what we all have to contribute to the "academic discourse community".

It's a Royster thing.

From what I Gathered, Jacqueline Jones Royster’s “When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own,” was more about communication than writing. Specifically, she addresses the problems and broken chords that exist between cross cultural discourse; the communities in which we live. She questions the validity of people who do not belong to a particular community writing about others that are within that community, or the community as a whole. This is not only something that exists(or doesn't) between borders of country, but other things that separate people from one another such as race and religion. I found this part of article to be controversial in that she exemplifies being African-American, and goes on to say that she doesn't really consider what Caucasians have to say about her race. She feels their interpretations will be suspect and fallacious because they do not exist with-in her community. Although she has a point, I thought it was ironic because it is exactly this kind of thought which seems to divide us; as it totally ignores the broader perspective. The broader perspective being; that although one may be African American- that person is still American, and belongs too a much larger community. She fails to clarify these kinds of things, I found this part of her article to be less than professional.
She does go on to say that there are possible ways to make discourse universal. She describes how communications styles are all but too specific, and to be generalized for a broader community. She seems occupied with the notion that people are incompetent communicators, that too often people are speaking and not listening. This creates poor understanding between people of different discourse communities and thus is why there exists broken discourse.


I don't know. I didn't really like her article. She made some interesting points, but I thought a lot of them go without saying. The cultural boundaries, invisible borders, and language barriers that divide communities are not the reason for poor communication. Poor communication exists because people in general are too often ignorant and self centralized to understand the realms of foreign communities. It is the same reason why segregations have existed since the dawn of man. This is what I thought she was trying to say many times, but instead, just beat around the bush.

Bloggng Bizzel*

Bizzel's Cognition, Convention, Certainty has to do with how writing relates to thinking. In this sense, the focus of the article is an exploration into how thinking is related to writing- not so much as to why or what writing is(as we have been previously studying).

According to Bizzel, composition and cognition are binded by three seperate but related capacities. Cognition says that we all have the capability to learn language-that it is innate, convention says this our social usage of this langauge leads to group conventions, and lastly certainity is reached because this social and cognitive langauge brings all discourse together.
For me, the most interesting part of the article came about when she discussed the two ways of thinking in terms of how this social discourse is related to writing and composition.
The inner-directed theory suggeststhe earliest stage, cognition, is the only developmental aspect in composition that is innate; and because of this, all students must have developed this process before they can move on to more complex things-such as addressing the audience.
The outer-directed way of thinking says that all language learning is sharpened in a social context; that all learning is collaborative. They say the most important thing a compsotion teacher can teach his students is that writing is discourse, and that both exist in social communities for the worthy.

Bizzel does not specifically say what theory, inner or outer is better suited for compositional education and theory. Rather, she seems to suggest that elements of both idea camps can be extracted to benefit one another- and the process as a whole. Conversely, she does go as far to criticize the inner-directed mode for being "insensitive to poor writers" because as Flower and Haye's suggest, writing problems exist because of student's cognitive deficiances. Bizzel believes that because the cognition aspect is innate, writing problems can be pinned to the learned aspect of discourse itself.

I found this article somewhat comfusing because of its complex nature. I did however, understand the core concepts which she discussed, and more applicably, related to the nature of writing. Cognition, Convention, and Certainity is an interesting way to approach writing because of its broad and inner-connected way of explaining how cognitive processes lead to composition. But how does this process happen? Bizzel would say that it is an innate process started in the cognition phase, and leads to her social communities. But why? Bizzel has already addressed how, but why or what motivates this innate developement? What brings us to the discouse convention, what goals motivate us to shape our compositional motors.

Flower and Hayes: Cognitive Theory explorations

I found The floower and Hayes' article to be enriching because it specifically addresses a cognitive process. Although it is a personal view, its clearly defined concepts were easy for me make sense of. In summary, Flower and Hayes have theorized the process through 4 main principles, these being: the process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers organize during the act of composing, these processes have a hierarchical organization in which any given process can be contained in any other, the act of composing itself is a goal-directed process determined by the author, writers create their own goals two different way: by generating high-level goals and supporting goals, and by changing/remaking goals based on what has been learned .(thanks to Katie for the specifics, I looked at her post!). Moreover, these points seem to exist in realm of three core foundations, as I like to think of them. The task environment, which is the where it happens; the writer's long-term memory, and the writing process; which is the closest thing to what we have been studying lately. A closer looks at these foundations reveals several important assumption(not proofs!):
First, every successive word used in writing, will help determine what word comes next. Obviously, in terms of what is pertinent and practical. Secondly, the writer stores knowledge of audience and writing plans in his long term-memory. This helps the writer improve upon what he/she has already written, both in content and the way it is addressed. Flower and Hayes take up two main issues with long-term memory. Finally, Flower and Hayes say that planning, translating, and teviewing is all apart of one process of which writers internalize all the arbitary symbols by which they will communicate their thoughts . Furthermore, during the writing process, writers are constantly monitoring and revising their works, as to decide when and how themes should be transitioned etc.

I thought the article was interesting and specific, which helped me understand what they were trying to depict. I did only read it once, so I also bounced from my classmate's blogs too. It seems the general consensus is that everybody understands. I see this article as applicable enough to most writers, both basic and advanced because it revolves includes elements that all writers have or have had. As Flower and Hayes seem to suggest, there seems to be specific ways that all writers go about their cognitive process; yet these ways are certainly up to interpretation; because after all, we're talking about theory.

Invoked thought: bastard discours and more

Beginning writers usually encounter an obstacle in their composition in that they are not entirely sure in which voice to speak in. In Bartholomae's article, he states that beginning writers must in a way, mimic the voice of experienced writers- but most can not do this. Instead, in creates an akward and imbalanced sense or tone for the reader, which makes no inferences to who or what is being invoked, and how the reader should interpret such. He says that many new writers have problems being assertive and taking a voice of their own, especially in argumentive or persausive papers- which may often times go against the voice of the professor or the class opinion. They don't feel compftorable lecturing. Like I noted before, Bartholamae says that this inexperience can be compensated by simply faking or mimicing a voice.
I agree with this notion. Often times before I have written, I find myself examining similiar compositions. Not only because I am seeking information but also checking to see if the voice I have written in or the the voice I seekto write in is in harmony with something I know is already a successful mode to address the audience, while keeping it a voice of my own.

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.