Blog from readings for 5/5/08

All of these readings led me to the same question. How can anyone teach something they cannot define? I liked Fulkerson’s breakdown of the discipline; the axiology, epistemology, & pedagogy. Now I think I understand the meaning of these terms and how they apply to any discipline. But it was his article, more than any that really shows that a writing or composition study defies definition. It has become apparent, that there is tumultuous disagreement with in the field. Is that because it is a humanities study and Humans are indefinable? Or is it sociological or cultural? It is certainly contextual. Are there some basic skills required of the student? Reading would be one and the ability to put pen to paper or use a word processor of some kind. The rest (like grammar, spelling and other linguistic tasks) seem relative (to the language).

Berlin’s article helped me review the various theories and philosophies of the formative writers in the field of the past ~30 years. His analyses of the four dominant theoretical categories, Neo-Aristotelians or classicists, Positivists or Current –Traditionalists; Neo-Platonists or expressionists; and the New Rhetoricians, helps better understand these philosophies and, as he says, “to better understand their modern manifestations”.

I believe that in every scholastic discipline, students become indoctrinated into the philosophical underpinnings of the curriculum of their Major – that field of study in which they are attempting to acquire degree. For example, mine was the philosophy of Betty Neuman, RN PhD. She developed a “Systems Model of health and wellness” that the School of Nursing subscribed to. In the 1980’s every Nursing program had a philosophical framework which grounded their teaching. They were many and varied. As numerous and varied as there were nurse-theorists, at the time. (There are only a few schools of nursing that follow a framework from Florence Nightingale, and I wild guess, that they are mostly British Military nursing programs.) In spite of utilizing different theories for defining nursing, the discipline maintained a standard for teaching. This has come under question in the past decade. I did not study any other discipline to determine if other fields like Biology or Chemistry also were taught with a philosophical framework. But, I see, now that English and more specifically Composition study is struggling to identify a framework or philosophy that truly identifies its purpose and pedagogy. I would assume this is because it (the fields of Composition studies) cannot define itself or its purpose.

Berlin analyzes each of the dominant theories for their basic belief, the advantage and disadvantage of the theory and how they impact the discipline and the student. I will not attempt to reiterate what he has so concisely explained, but to say that I am grateful for his synopsis of these philosophies. If I were to identify myself with one of these I would probably say I am a New Rhetorician, as I understand it. I agree that writing is contextual, is the use of language within a given “culture” or discourse community, based on the interpretation of the reader (not always the writer) and is dynamic. As the language of the society changes, so does the meaning, and only the interpreter can make the meaning.

Is this something that can be taught? The curriculum described by Downs and Wardle seems to incorporate all the concepts of composition theory and teach the “moves” to make the student able to be effective novice writers. Their course structure looks like the student gets a look at the various philosophies along with practice writing in various aspects that lend toward writing for many purposes. They look at the expectations that the various stakeholders have for the purpose of teaching writing. And to me, it looks like it lends itself to a curriculum separate and apart from English (as a discipline) is that what is forthcoming? Writing and/or composition needs to establish itself as a separate discipline in order to define itself and find its true purpose and place within the University? Am I stating the obvious?

Can there be more than one theoretical underpinning among college composition course and yet a standard of teaching? I am a science major, but in a humanistic field, which means that my truth is variable and dependent on the interpretation from the patient in the context of their reality. But I have standards of care that must be met in providing care within that reality. Can the teaching of composition and writing maintain a standard or is that going back to a quantitative scientific notion of teaching process.

I have another question, then. Is the term writing used inappropriately? Should writing apply to the technique and Composition apply to the study and practice of using language in all its forms to communicate some dialogue either spoken or written. Aren’t Writers really Composers?

Thanks for letting me voice my novice and naïve opinions.

PW

My experience building a web site.

After two days trying to understand the tutorial, I began searching the Internet for Web designs and web site building information. I have a few friends that are Web page builders and know how to do this, but we could not get together. As I indicated, I do not learn well by reading or listening to instruction. I have to see it and do it to make sense of the instructions.

I found Web.Com to be easy to understand and navigate. There are only three steps involved. The first step (of course) involves money. I had to by my domain name. What a concept. I have my own domain! Once I was registered on the site with my domain name, I could begin building the parts of the Web site that I wanted.

Web.com provides easy to follow prompts for each section of the site. It provides a choice of templates for the look of the home page. You can choose the font and size, color combination and you can personalize each area of each page with “edit” prompts. I was able to make a variety of pages with links to other page.

My initial home page was very informal, and I wanted to change the look to be more business-like. I found a picture in my files that I could edit and post. It took some work to crop and adjust the size for the site (four hours, in fact). I had trouble finding an appropriate welcome greeting. The Logo picture I chose from the UNLV logos site transferred with blurry edges, in spite of being a Jpg. Image. I don’t know how to make it clearer. It will have to do.

My resume page worked well once I figured out that I could not “copy and paste” into the boxes. As there were several boxes available for text, when I copied and pasted my resume, it copied my text several times as a running text, but in various font sizes and styles. Wow. That took two days and the help of a friend to resolve. We finally started over and just typed the text into the boxes on the page per maximum characters for each box. That worked and looks OK. I took Dr. J’s advice and removed my personal address and other information like that, since this information is now public.

My links page is a little different in that all of the text I put in the page about the link became the hyperlink for the site. It is all underlined and I am not sure how to change it. I changed all of the font throughout the site to have a uniform, look. I hope that gives it a more business – like appearance.

Over all, once I overcame my anxiety and actually began working on the Web page, I found it interesting and fun. I am not sure if I will keep the site, (for $11.95 a month). Or convert it to different, Free site. I will need some help getting on to the UNLV publishing site. I started there and, because I am not faculty or staff, would have to buy the program. Not at this time. Thank you.

Check it out at www.Pattimidwyf.com