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.