Web site published

my web site address is www. Pattimidwyf.com. I bought my own domain name on Web.com. This was the only web building site I could understand. Anyway, check it out. See you in class.

Patti

reading for 4/28/08

Blog for reading for 4/28/08

Freire, Paulo The Adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom and education and conscientizaCao

This is a highly politicized picture of a literary program that promotes student centered learning. Illustrating the gatekeeping concept by defining the “illiterates” as objects and self-inflicting outcasts from society” If, then marginality is not by choice, marginal man has been expelled from and kept outside of the social system and is therefore an object of violence” (p 620). Freire proposes a new view for educating impoverished and uneducated adults to read and write. Freire uses acculturation and national identity to promote literacy as a means of communication, not just betterment. If educators would be benevolent counselors, they would seek out all of these marginal men to return them in to the society they have been exclude from. Literacy would be the medicine to cure them and return them to the “bosom of happiness by giving them the gift of the word” As Smith ( Student’s goals, gatekeeping, and some questions of ethic) says , if teachers are , in fact, not gatekeepers, they then must bring their teaching to ALL of the students in the population, not just those that come to the teacher (by the admission process of the institution).

Freire refers to these analogies of nourishing and curing as though the illiterate were objects, in a dependent relationship. He demonstrates how this does not fit the reality of the illiterate. He argues that this is contrary to what the people really need. They need to be allowed to find their own meaning in the words. He speaks to much of the same things that Smith speaks to; The culture and context of the student. The context must be meaningful to them and apply to their world.

Freire describes a multiphase process of learning that allows the student (Illiterates) to discover the meaning in the syllable and create their own understanding and sentences as they apply to their “world”. His program opens the learner to citizenship and self exploration. They can now enter into the “lettered” world of the decision-makers. He can now express himself graphically.

I found it necessary to assume that by “man” Freire was meaning “people” He never used any other gendered term and I could only hope that women were not excluded from this program. I also have to continually remind myself of the era in which these essays were written because these concepts are not new to me. I have been studying learner-centered concepts as advocated theory for teaching in adult education, which applies to the freshman college student, even if we want to see them as fledgling adults. In a learning setting of nontraditional students this is even more applicable.

Smith, Jeff Student’s goals, gatekeeping and some questions of ethics

Smith presents a rather macrocosmic ideation of the role of the composition teacher. He argues that as much as the concept of “gatekeeping” has become [believed to be] passé it still exists. Only the students (people) that are qualified for admission to the institution are allowed to be taught. Then, the students must be taught with an “eye to their future…with a sense of civic responsibility to those individuals that the teacher does not nor ever will see.” Whew!

Smith, like Freire, relates students (or illiterates) with joining the higher order of society. He discusses the internal goals of the student. Teachers will either acknowledge this and teach to what the student needs or not acknowledge this and teach what they perceive the student should know. The student, being niave , will not protest as they believe that the teacher knows what they, as students of academia, need to know. (somewhat of a circular argument). The “matter of why students come to college is passed over in silence” (p.101).

He realtes a feminist viewpoint as the nurturing “motherheart” of pedagogy in writing and how this relates to the necessary discipline of the chemistry (or other science) class that the student requires in order to become a good doctor. The process counts for less than the product. The means may or may not justify the ends. We owe it to the student to prepare them for their responsibilities as it relates to the subject/ goal. Smith talks about the teacher’s responsibility to the larger society, and students must be selected, stratified, graded and failed, if necessary to insure the greater benefit of that society. The consumer (sponsor/ profession or as they are now called, stakeholders) of the product (graduate) expects that the institution has prepared them for their purpose.

He argues that the question is not whether or not teachers should be gatekeepers, but that the methods of teaching make gatekeeping rational and fair.

I wonder to whom it will be fair. The argument still exists as to whether the University is a place of research, existential learning for self-enlightenment or a “training ground” for the various consumer professions in the local society; or, simply, a business that requires an enrollment and the teachers must see to it that the student “makes it through” in orser “to keep bums in the seats” (p.315). Nursing has asked this question and researched it from many perspectives. Does the “profession” of Nursing dictate how the student is prepared, is it the licensing board, or the hospitals and organizations that employ nurses? How much responsibility does the writing teacher have to those stakeholders? Why does a nursing student or premed student even need a course in writing or composition? ( I know, I am treading on dangerous ground) If the colleges teach the student how to conduct research in their given field and use “models” of good (published) studies, couldn’t the student learn to write from that? Obviously, as Smith contends the question of how and why to teach writing (across the curriculum) is one that will require continued study, as the value of writing and other means of graphic communication will constantly change as society and the needs of society change. (my interpretation)

Shor, Ira Monday Morning Fever:…

Ira Shor has taken the studies and theories of Paulo Freire and used them to integrate writing with real life themes; In this case work and teachers. Shor uses the title ”Monday Morning Fever” to illustrate the fear teachers and student have of coming to class to face another week of alienation (p.104) Like Freire, Shor advocates teaching writing through topics and themes that have meaning for the student. She has them write about the best jobs and the worst jobs they have had, or their worst teacher. Then, by reading these papers to each other, they discuss and develop ideas for more writing. This pedagogical style is effective because it keeps the students in the forefront and the teacher in the background. It is learner-centered and the “learners” include the teacher. Shor states that the students possess more language skills than they will display in school and using their reality and their language “can release hidden talents”(p.107). Shor presents a system of organization in three steps: Think, itemize, write. Another system that utilizes the student’s language is “dictation sequence” where one student will dictate their thoughts to another who writes everything down. Once the compositions are written the students read them aloud. As the student reads, grammatical and usage correction occurs. What shor calls, “the self-correcting voice”(p.110). This defies the notion that thinking and writing and reading are different and come from different processes in the brain; or this activity utilizes all of these areas of the brain to create “composition” and enhance the writing experience of the student. I am in favor of the later concept. Shor looks at this concept as possible and ego building because people learn to speak long before they learn to write. The “voicing’ method uses an inherent strength to remediate a weakness. In traditional schools learning formal reading and writing creates a disassociation from the rich textual resource of the spoken language ( p111). In some traditional English composition classes the student can be made to feel the he cannot read, write or think correctly without formal reading and writing (I cannot remember in which of these articles I read this.)

The concepts in the three essays discussed thus far reflect back on the theories from the mid nineteenth Century rhetoricians that we read about in the early essays. The psychological theories from Bain and what Kinneavy wrote about with Genre theory “cultural/historical activity theory”; Students writing about personal experiences.

Whereas I agree that writing from their personal context creates more meaning for the student, I can see that discussing some topics could be difficult for some students. If a student discovers that they are in a minority of political or religious beliefs, they may feel intimidated. If they write about something extremely personal, not realizing it will be discussed, they may be embarrassed. In some respect it may be wiser for the teacher to present either a topic or some parameters on topics. But that brings up the issue of limiting the creativity of the students, or worse the teacher putting forth their own political or religious agenda.

I had to laugh when I read Harriston’s essay on diversity, ideology and teaching writing in light of my last comments. Harriston is writing about her Chair address to the CCCC in 1985. She looks at where the profession composition and writing has been, Is, and where it is going. She seems to be very concerned abot the teachers’ personal agendas and platforms in their writing classes. She is sure the teachers will poison the minds of our naïve’ and innocent freshman. She discusses the fact that teachers have an uncensored capability to use the classroom for their own agendas and this would be very detrimental to the growth and development of these students as writers. She gives examples of the various theorists that, she believes, are advocating using the classroom to impart ideology and politically charged wisdom. Some believe that it is their responsibility to get the students to understand how they are oppressed and socially victimized and write about rebellion and rejecting the status quo. Harriston’s views make me wonder if English departments are where people (as teachers) go when they can’t get into the POLI SCI Dept. Personally, If I had had any teacher that was putting forth their own political or religious agenda in my classes, I would have left the class. I sometimes have a little trouble with the discussion of the politics of English departments in this class. I am not involved and not interested in this, but I am in the minority, so I guess I am a little intimidated. I accept it as a learning opportunity of a part of the University that I am not familiar.

Berlin speaks to the same thing, Ideology in the classroom. His essay brings together the writings of the other authors, namely Freire and Shor. He looks at the various theories that have developed over the decades in teaching writing (science vs. expressionistic vs. social-epistemic) He relates how ideology is in all thought and experience. It is what gives value and meaning to everything. His discussion helped me understand what is meant by “epistemology”.

Harriston criticizes Berlin for his “neutrality”, but I think she puts forth a very strong and negative viewpoint of the various theorists’ intentions. Berlin puts forth excerpts of the other theorists in the context of their theories on rhetoric, but does so with far less bias. I interpret him to be more open minded and objective as to the different viewpoints on rhetorical ideology. He presents many opinions on ideology in the classroom and the influences on the students, the teachers and the institutions for preparing the students to write.

As a new learner of composition theory, I am still uncommitted in my opinion on how writing should be taught, what makes good writers, and whether or not any of it can be demonstrated statistically (scientifically). I am sure it is a question that will always exist. I do agree, however, that the student’s needs must be addressed from the student’s perspective, not the teacher’s. Why is the student in college and what are their goals. Not that the writing class can teach each student how to write for each discipline, but, rather, help the student find the path to that writing and others; Present various ways to develop writing skills.

readings for 4/21/08

Blog for readings for 4/21/08 I don't seem to be able to get these posted sooner. I keep trying.

Brandt Sponsors of Literacy

Brandt illustrates the principle of literacy sponsorship through the life experiences of several individuals. She identifies literacy as a commodity. “…one of the great engines of profit and competitive advantage in the 20^th century: a lubricant for consumer desire; a means of integrating corporate markets; a foundation for the development of weapons and other technology; a raw material in the mass production of information”(p 166).

Her essay is an attempt to offer a conceptual approach to the development of literacy as an economic development (p.166) (emphasis mine), the value of literacy and the factors that influence or motivate the individual to seek it, which she has labeled “sponsorship”. Sponsors, as Brandt calls them, are any “agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach or model as well as recruit, regulate, or withhold literacy- and gain advantage by it” (p 168). She sees sponsorship as the causes into which people’s literacy get recruited, the why and how they learn to read and write and, get exploited (p.168).

In this essay, Brandt looks at concepts of literacy development through the experiences of various individuals and demonstrates the patterns of sponsorship to the processes of stratification, competition and reappropriation (p.183). Her discussion of the literacy learning experiences of Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez demonstrates the concept of stratification. Although these two individuals were from the same era, area and educational opportunity their access to literacy was very different. Brandt compares the difference of majority-race membership, male gender and affluent socioeconomic status and learning literacy access to that of the minority-race membership, female gender and lower socioeconomic status and their acquisition of literacy for their personal self development. It is no surprise that Branch, who is a white male and comes from a higher socioeconomic back ground, was surrounded by literacy and easily accessed higher education and upper management employment. Lopez had to teach herself, had less access to instruction and learning tools. For Branch, the University town met his literacy needs, but for Lopez, it id not. Her literacy talents in two languages did not gain her the same advantages as Branch. This illustrates that there is, as Brandt states, a statistical correlation between high literacy achievement and higher socioeconomic, majority-race status (p.171).

In the next section, Brandt illustrates how sponsorship through competition effects literacy achievement. The life of Dwayne Lowery, a union representative, was changed by the increasing demands of higher levels of literacy from his opposition. Over time simple negotiations became more complex as the level of communication involved more legal and elaborate forms of literacy - reading and writing. Although Mr. Lowery met these demands through self-education, he was eventually replaced by someone younger, educated and certified in the field of contract negotiation. His literacy talents were devalued inspire of his seasoned experience. The sponsorship, in this case, controlled and inhibited his literacy value through competition.

The last example demonstrates how two different women experienced changes in their lives by reappropriating the literacy learning they achieved in their professional lives. They each, in different way and for different reasons used the skills they had acquired on their jobs and learned to use them in others aspects of their lives. In this way they managed to redirect the value of their literacy talents to more personally rewarding endeavors.

Finally, Ms Brandt looks at teaching and the dynamics of sponsorship. As teachers of reading and writing, she eludes to being brokers between literacy buyers and sellers; Teaching learners how to negotiate their literacy talents. She states that when one’s sponsors are multiple and, sometimes, at odds, they can make writing difficult, but if absent writing is unlikely.

My thoughts:

Brandt’s article was an enlightening aspect of motivation for writing. We have discussed much about discourse communities and this puts a different spin on that concept. I found her essay to be concrete, cohesive and stayed to the point. It was the easiest for me to understand, that we have read, thus far. I cannot analyze her theory as I do not have the theoretical expertise but find her concept interesting and I think well supported by her examples. Not the best “science” but she makes her point.

I can identify with the individuals that she features in their sponsorship for self-development. I can see how my own literacy acquisition was influenced by the need to learn and develop the literacy skills for the academic and professional discourse communities that I was entering. I feel that this is, also, what she was discussing. As a woman who entered academia later than most, I also felt the disadvantages of not being a traditional student. Fortunately, I had the sponsorship of organizations that valued women reentering the job force and a profession in high demand and understaffed.

I think we all, in some way, reappropriate the literacy skills we learn in one area to other areas of our lives to increase the value of our literacy skills or improve the economy or personal reward. We need to teach this. The teaching of reading and writing, in economic terms, seems to indicate that teachers need to understand the motivation (or sponsorship) of their students and the purpose of their learning and how to navigate and negotiate these influences. In the essay by McCarthy we see that the student did not know how to reappropriate his talents.

McCarthy A stranger in strange Lands

This article seems to be a demonstration of what we have discussed in class about audience, discourse community and the technology of writing. McCarthy followed this student as he figured out his audience, primarily his teachers, learned “what they wanted” from him and the appropriate language and format of each assignment as it applied to each class/course. Also, the concept of motivation or sponsorship from the Brandt article is illustrated. The student did better in the classes he felt had greater application to his life and future, Biology and English. He was motivated to write for his English class because he felt it helped him learn to write for his biology class which was his goal. He could not, unfortunately relate his general knowledge of writing to each of his classes, but saw them as entirely separate entities. He was able to relate the purpose of writing to his success in the class and to future classes, and for the purpose of communicating with the teacher and fellow students.

His difficulty with the poetry class is a reflection on the value he placed on what the class could offer him. Also, was the negative criticism from the teacher, who offered little in the way of correcting his mistakes. Dave’s contributions, on which he spent many hours, were not valued by the teacher, who was the “expert” and Dave the novice. He was not made to feel like he could ever achieve any higher status, whereas, in his other classes, he was given avenues for solutions, and treated like a peer. His contributions were valued and encouraged. Therefore he did better, he was more motivated. He learned to use the language of each discipline and the unique techniques and formats required.

This essay reflected strongly with the Brandt essay. We read and write for reasons that are important to us, even if we do not really want to. (sponsorship) We learn to use the language and techniques required of the discourse community in which we want to be accepted. ( writing across curriculum/discipline). We need to fell successful and valued in order to succeed or achieve a goal.

This essay was, again, easier to understand, straightforward and applicable to the concepts we have been studying. I guess I am a concrete reader. I don’t elate well to the writers that refer to other theorist in a more abstract way.

I think the author illustrated her point well and applied it to a teaching concept, which, for me, is important. How do we teach people to write (or succeed in their learning).

Heath Protean shapes in Literacy Events: …..

I had to look up the concept of “Protean Shapes”. I am not sure I understand it yet. Heath discusses the way people learn about their language and writing from their culture and demonstrates her theory of learning to read and write as a social phenomenon. By illustrating the many uses of the language of the people in Trackston, she shows how oral language differs from written language in both form and uses. I believe this is an example of how language appears to change when viewed from outside vs. inside and written vs. oral. It occurred to me as I read this piece, that there is so very much that is understood in unspoken language as well as visual comprehension that is not available or is more difficult to convey in written language. The author must go a long way to portray a scene that can be absorbed visually, without words or emotions that can be expressed by tone of voice or facial expression. Heath discusses this very early in her essay “the language of oral tradition is held to suggest meaning without explicitly stating information….In contrast, language associated with the literature tradition is portrayed as making meaning explicit in the text and as not relying on the experiences of readers for verification of truth value.” (p.443-44) I was not sure why I had to read the entire dialogue if the prayer, except to see how the use of the language changed with the emotion of the speaker, but it was an effective illustration of orality of language as culture.

This essay is another example of the value of both written and oral language as it applies to the every day lives of the people in a social group. They learn from each other, as children, what is important in the language, how to use it appropriately depending in the need and circumstances. As adults, they learn the meaning of aspects of the language from the experience of others, who will then pass that on.

I agree with Heath that language, both written and oral are social, cultural and only has meaning when it can be applied to or by the need of the individual or society in which they want to be accepted. The inequities of social language are also demonstrated in the use of forms that are read to applicants in some of the occupations Heath discusses. I felt this reflects back to McCarthy and the student. Why should these people learn to use reading and writing skills if they are not valued, seen as being able to contribute or treated like peers in their contexts? Are the employers using a different social language from the cultural or social group of the community, or does it appear different from the perspective of the individual and from the business. Do they each apply different meaning to the same language? It may be easier to get through the process, but it does not give credence or dignity to the people within that community.

Hull Hearing other voices….

Hull’s essay discusses the aspect of literacy in the work place. What constitutes literacy and how does being illiterate or literate affect the employee’s ability to function? She looks at various types of employment and some of the popular theories about the failure of the business or economy being the fault of the illiterate employees. As she proceeds through the essay to dispel this popular myth, I immediately thought of how many industries have outsourced their businesses to foreign countries or imported foreign workers. How does that support the idea that being able to read and write effectively in the business makes or break the business? This article really speaks about learning and using language and what is important to the individual. When the author is relating the experience of the supervisors sending memos on housekeeping tips to people that had been doing the job for years, they were insulted (not given credence for their experience or valued) The tips did not help them improve how they did their job nor apply to what they felt was important (getting a GED). The author illustrates how instituting group work did not work because the employees were not given any instruction on how to change their social structure or make the concept work. They needed to have some idea of how this was supposed to work, by modeling or being trained by others preferably peers that had been successful. But these concepts were not known at the time of this article. I also, got the impression that the concept of learning literacy as being important to one’s future and useful to ones goals needs to be developed from the earliest education. It became very clear in this article that, as often happens, students do not pay attention or learn what they cannot see a purpose in. (such as Dave). People learn what they need to, when they need it. When exposed to higher levels of literacy, it is taken for granted. For those that are not exposed to it or feel they do not need it or cannot use it, it may not be learned. I guess this falls under positive constructionist theory in that people bring with them their experiences into new learning situations. I would add to that “as they think they need them” ( as seen by our student, Dave) and the bank employees.

I see this article as another example of literacy being a sociocultural phenomenon. Language is symbolic and contextual, both written and oral. Most of us are able to move among more than one language group (or discourse community) and we will not learn or understand those that hold no meaning for us. Had I not had a need for this class (I signed up for it) I would not have learned any of the language of this discipline. Like a language of another country, I feel I am not fluently literate in it, but I can understand some of it. If I find I need it in my future, I will continue to learn how to use the language of English theorists (why did this font change?)

blog for reading for 4/4/08

Readings for 4/14/08

These reading were all about the technology for writing and the technology of writing.

Some of the authors had great insight into the future of IT and computers.

The first article by Sullivan explored the “possible impact of publishing the visual page on writers, readers, classroom and curricular theories”. She identifies how the writing theorists at the time of her article had not embraced the computer. She reiterates their reservations and their advocacy. Some felt it was a “helpmate” others, like Ong, who felt that technology constantly remakes the way we communicate and even, think” (p 45). Some felt that computer composition was a threat to writing theory and pedagogy (p 46). I would say to that, not a threat, just a required change, like any new science or evidence. Technology has always changed society and how things are done. Consider how the invention of printing changed writing.

I liked how the author discussed the extra work of the writer. Word production has always been separated from word publication. Now the writer must deal with how the words on the page impact the meaning of the words. I thought about poets and how they have often used the placement of the words on the page for emphasis of the meaning. The author points out that traditionally, the writer interacts with the manuscript and the readers never see the evolution of the text. Depending on the writer, the reader may be able to contribute to the development of the text, if the writer chooses to make it public. The writing teacher can “look over the shoulder” of the student and watch how they compose and revise (see Harris and Wambeam) and the students can even give each other feedback if allowed to post to a discussion board.

On one hand authors can have a say over the layout of their text, the illustrations etc., unless the publisher has specific guidelines they must follow. In which case, this sounds like cost saving strategies. The writer has the choice of doing the visual work themselves or hiring a visual editor and layout specialist, which is what the publisher has done, traditionally. The writer now has access to a wider audience that might not find their book in the bookstore, but can be invited to read their book through the internet.

The second article, by Harris and Wambeam showed that a decade ago, they were looking at the impact of distant education; the advantages, the importance of community and the outcomes. I wonder what they think of it now, that almost every University has an on-line or distance education program. We are communicating/ exchanging ideas and information thorough a written medium. Writing has become extremely important and the genre and discourse community wider and more diverse. This was expressed in previous article, even the first day. Again, has this study helped determine if writing is an art or a technique to facilitate communication? Does the language of the conversation help develop the talent of the writer, no matter how informal?

The introduction of “guests” or outsiders into the discussions (by MOOS) demonstrated the capacity to generate new discourse communities and open the students to exposure to alternative social groups. We have watched the Internet develop into this very thing: A place for groups to meet, converse, share, debate, date, play games, compete, or stalk each other.

I think their experiment benefited two concepts 1) connecting teaching strategies in writing with theoretical concepts through the writing exchange of the students via technology and 2) the use of the internet for teaching (any subject).

As they mentioned, the success of the communication was only as good as the technology. Consider how that technology has changed to improve the availability of faster communication. It is still subject to failure, though, as I experienced many times in my distance education program. I spent last semester in Indiana. They have a lot of storms in Indiana and my internet link was via a satellite which is dependent on a clear path for the signal. Clouds, waving trees and rain can interfere with that signal. Wires get damaged in storms. So, like phone lines, my internet access could go down anytime and it did.

Did I appreciate the effect this type of learning had on my writing? I can’t say that I did. I consider who will read my text, and revise as I write. I guess I remember my grammar instruction. I look for ways to make the meaning clear, as it cannot be clarified as easily as when spoken (in communication). I always felt I was writing to an audience, different from (but including) the teacher.

The article by McGee and Ericsson made me laugh at first, as I had made a comment on the blog from the previous week about the MSGC. I called it an “authoritarian dictator” that interferes with my right to free text. I threatened to sue Bill Gates. I agree with the authors that this technology has been introduced without consult or question. I understand that it was designed as a helper, but I resent its interference and insistence that I not use fragments. I can’t help it that there are incomplete phrases in my references. Another authoritarian dictator known as MLA and APA requires that I include punctuation in incomplete phrases. I sometimes use short, descriptive phrases for emphasis and I don’t want to have to explain to “HAL” why I chose them.

Anyway, I thought the article brought up some interesting and important points that the MSGC has never been challenged to its theoretical underpinnings or the authority of its designers. (Remember, the “authority” that decried the lack of good grammar in English students had no expertise in writing). The examples that they gave about the construct of passive to active voice was interesting. I wish it could recognize when I type form instead of from or they instead of then. It recognizes the incorrect spelling but not incorrect use of a correctly spelled word. (Except when it was stuck in Canadian English mode and corrected my American spelling.) The system was designed with voice recognition in mind. I think it is, also, designed for business as that is where students are headed.

The authors discuss best practices in teaching writing. Whether it is better to view writing as an ecological/sociological construct that is dynamic and constantly be created and recreated by readers, writers and teachers and is decidedly social. We know that society changes as the technology changes. It seems odd that the concept of traditional rhetoric is still considered the best practice; because it follows the formula for a discipline even thought the precepts of this method of teaching has been shown to be ineffective since the 1880’s. My point being that if the MSGC is designed to be like traditional rhetoric as the writers state “ concerned with the prescriptive use of language and surface concerns of style, then I have to agree, it is an ineffective tool that can confuse a novice writer or a student that is not fluent or secure with SAE. This is where I see its greatest threat.

I was not aware that the MSGC can be turned off or customized (except to language of a country). Who interpreted the dictionaries of these languages?

I think that the writers have a good point; overall, but they were somewhat caustic in their criticism. I wonder if they work for that fruit company that makes computers.

The article by Shaun Slattery reminded me of the article by Eilola and Selber in their discussion on assemblage. In this article the author discusses technical writing of a document development company. The technical writers have no content expertise and through communications with subject experts from the companies for whom the technical writers are writing, they “assemble” the technical documents from various sources, such as e-mails, previous documents and many other sources. They make the work sound daunting. The question is how much original writing of texts or composition takes place? Many people are responsible for the finished product. It is a collaborative effort, based on other people’s original work.

I was especially impressed with the workload and the ability of the writers to go between so many different sources of information and tolerate the amount of distraction described. I get frantic when my phone rings when I am in the process of writing something. I do, however, have several pages of text or other source information that I may navigate between when I am developing a piece of text for a class. Sometimes it is my own, from another project and sometimes it is a reference I am using for resource to the topic. I am not fluid doing this, but it is easier than writing out all the quotes or references.

The article looks at the division of labor in the assemblage of technical writing and cautions that this may relegate technical writers to an assembly line of document development rather than rhetorical text development by individual writers. They illustrate how the fragmentation of this work makes text development more difficult, but with how they describe the amount of information from which they piece their “puzzles” together, one person could not handle the volume of information and even a small group would have difficulty developing a cohesive product.

article on the development of community in online learning

It seems I have parallel topics in English and Nursing. I thought that in light of our current readings for the past two weeks, you might be interested in this article about community and collaborative learning. I thought it really validates what Harris and Wambeam demonstrated.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International
Vol. 42, No. 3, August 2005, pp. 217–230
ISSN 1470–3297 (print)/ISSN 1470–3300 (online)/05/030217–14
© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/01587910500167910
Strong community, deep learning: exploring
the link
Carole Chapman
*
, Leonie Ramondt and Glenn Smiley
Anglia Polytechnic University, UK


I will attach it in the discussion area for the class, since I did not want to post the entire article in the blog.

Patti W.

readings for 4/07/08

I posted this yesterday, but it apparently disappeared

Readings for 4/07/08

Ong – I think I got the gist of what Ong was saying (?) I felt like I was trying to read another language. I do not speak that formal Englishese. I understand that he is saying that writers are writing to an audience (as does everything else – Rhetoric) I also understand what he means by the audience has a role to play and it is up to the writer to direct the reader to know and accept that role. He implies that without that direction, the reader cannot interpret what the writer is saying or get the message of the story (in fiction). The readers must put themselves into the story; identify with the characters.

I am not sure why he went on so much about Hemmingway. I think this is an important concept, because freshman writers may not be aware or able to do this. This may be something that is necessary to teach, or demonstrate (as I believe Ong was trying to do with his examples of Hemmingway’s writing).

I liked Ong’s essays from these past two weeks; I just have a difficult time interpreting some of his words and language structure. (That’s what I get for being a Nurse. I can’t understand a neurology consult any better).

Porter –

I liked what Porter said about discourse communities restraining the writer and that the audience …”is as responsible for the production of the text as the writer” p.38).His discussion of the text and authorship of the Declaration of Independence, reminded me of other things I have read that had more than one author. Remembering how I could tell which author was speaking as the chapters unfolded, just by their writing style.

I have to agree with Porter that most, if not all discourse is built upon, and borrowed from the discourse of others, which he calls intertextuality. I believe that as, writers, speakers, we look for ways for our audience to identify with our speech or writing (rhetoric/discourse) and, therefore, we borrow “signs” or “tags” to other influential speakers or writers. As I have stated before, since I have entered into graduate education, I have discovered that there is “no original thought”. I don’t mean that to say that graduate students are not capable of original thought, just that at this level of scholarship, it is presumed that our opinions have been shaped by the theories or science of others and all of our opinions must be validated by their original source. (If they said it/wrote it – you must cite it.) We are products of our society, no matter how liberal, rebellious, or different we think we are; and we will speak and write from that influence and to that audience.

I like how Porter poses the questions concerning the exclusionary power of the discourse community; does the writer have any creative freedom? Or are writers doomed to plagiarisms?

If we look ahead to Johnson-Eilola and Selber on Assemblages, I asked my self Porter’s next question – Can any text be said to be new? Considering how the movie industry seems to be stuck on remakes, this essay seems to explain why.

I can’t help but be taken back to the beginning – Aristotle; he taught to speak to your audience. Now, as writers, we cannot see that audience, but we have to presume how the audience will think and in what discourse community they “live”. We have to use signs and logos and ethos they will understand (unconsciously) some logos are so ingrained into our society (or from past societies) as to be archetypal; they reach the very subconscious of understanding.

Bruffe -

I could identify with much of what Bruffe was talking about, in that I am in a computer-based learning program and it is all about collaborative learning. I think we collaborate within ourselves (i.e. talk to ourselves) before we write anything to anyone else. It seems to me that the concern of “one-mind” non-individual thinking (group think or “peer indoctrination” as Trimbur writes in Villanueva (p 462)), and has given way to collaborative, not necessarily consensual, writing and learning. In science, a “body” of researchers that never meet face-to-face is now doing many studies. They share their findings and collaborate on the interpretation of the meaning of the findings. They share the work and the credit and, I imagine, the criticism. Theories of collaborative learning are coming alive in the computer- based programs where students discuss their lessons with the teacher as a facilitator to that discussion.

He talks about normal and abnormal discourse and describes abnormal discourse as when discourse deviates from the accepted and expected “norms” of the discourse community. Consensus no longer exists. I like that he sees this as a way of shaking things up, of introducing a fresh or different perspective. Sometimes this is accepted and opens new avenues of thought and sometimes someone could get hurt!

Trimbur raised some interesting questions and points. I was enthusiastic about Bruffe’s discussion of collaborative learning, because I am experiencing this aspect of my education in teaching and Nursing. Then I read Trimbur and get all paranoid about loss of individuality. Then, I considered the dating of the essay. He discusses and debates the thoughts of various theorists, philosophers, sociologists and many others that had opinions on abnormal discourse, socialconstructionism and collaborative learning and consensus. (His essay is a great example of intertextuality. I wonder if he could have referenced any more writers on the subject).

Although science calls for some consensus by its very nature of proof and provability, it also changes over time. Therefore I agree with him (and his reference to Young) that…” students can learn to agree to disagree, but not because everyone has their own opinion…” (There would never be consensus on anything and then there would be real power struggles), but that students bring with them such diversity and they need to “organize the conditions in which we live and work accordingly” (p 476). He espouses a consensus that offers a way to allow for many voices in the collaborative classroom, without dominance or hierarchy. Here, Here and Hazah! He did call it a Utopian ideal, didn’t he?

The Johnson-Eilola & Selber article brings us much closer to the world of rhetoric, discourse and composition (if I may be so presumptuous with the term) that we live in today. How many people are “publishing” video excerpts of someone else’s work (or their own) on U-Tube? We see montages of music and video on cable stations of “remixed” work from a variety of artists and amateurs, alike. I alluded earlier to the remaking of movies. Is this the new form of discourse? It certainly seems to be the new “Genre d’Jour”. (I made that up). Is this “creativity or lack of creativity? I recently saw a movie directed and produced by Julie Taymor (of Broadway fame for Lion King) (sorry if I offended, I know her name is well known). Where she took the music of the Beatles and told a love story that was more like an anthology of the “Sixties”, called Across the Universe. I thought it was brilliant and poignant. (I almost feel like it is premonitory _ history repeats itself). Her interpretation of the music brought new meaning to the songs, or was it more of an expose’ of the real meanings Lennon and McCartney had in mind? Well, Like Ong, I think I have drifted from my point with this illustration. Is it really plagiarism to reinvent the meaning of someone else’s work? (I am sure that Ms. Taymor had full rights and cooperation of McCartney or whoever else owns the rights to the Beatles” music – Michael where are you?)

** My MS spell checker is an authoritarian dictator, inhibiting my ‘free-text” writing. I am suing Bill Gates for limiting my first amendment rights by not letting me use contractions and irregular verb forms!! Am I starting to sound like a liberal arts major?

readings for 3/31

I am really posting late this time, due to circumstances beyond my control - I had trouble understanding ONG!

Blog for 3/31/08 Eng 701

Ong describes literacy as an expected norm of human expression and thought (p.19-1). I always thought that it meant one could read and write in one’s culture. He espouses that we have integrated the skill of writing and ingrained it so deeply that we cannot separate it from ourselves or recognize how it influences our concepts of language and literacy. He discusses how written language is more totalic and externalized a foreign, manufactured product. He refers to Plato’s condemnation of writing as “destroying memory”, weakening the mind. I always thought that writing helps to remember – expending the files, making retrieval easier.

Ong uses the example of thinking abut words as”evanescent”. We cannot hear a word in our minds in its entirety, without hearing each syllable and losing the previous part of the word, like hearing a bar of music or a melody (20, p1). I have to visualize the syllables or sound the syllable of a word to be able to spell or write them. I have to make a word and “event” as he calls it to make it a “thing”.

Written text may be spatially and visually fixed and permanent (that is why we-in the modern world of distrust of memory and spoken – like it), but I disagree that it is dead. Written language can be descriptive enough to evoke emotions. Poetry can be abstract and yet touch the subconscious. He speaks to this later in the piece. Graphics can be symbolic enough to represent an entire concept, but require the reader (or recipient) to be literate in the language of the culture.

He is correct that the written text will outdistance us. It will be around, long after we are gone. Isn’t that why it was invented? To record history for posterity. Ong seems to be arguing for and against the technology of writing at the same time. He identifies numerous points on how writing separates or divides. He then says that writing ties together, many things.

His use of language certainly distances my understanding of what he is trying to say. I get the gist of what he is saying, but the diction and syntax he uses makes reading his essays very difficult. Of all the compositions we have read for this class, Ong is by far the most difficult to understand. His way of writing reminds me of an exercise we did in high school English. For example, I could say “Scintillate, Scintillate, asteroid minific”, this is correct English; but it would be so much easier to understand if I said “Twinkle, twinkle, little star!

Distributed Cognition at work is a discussion of the purpose of writing and a demonstration of responsive writing vs. collaborative writing. The article points out that distributed cognition is not the same in the university as it is in the working world and He states that it should be called “socially shared knowledge” instead. Although the teacher will share knowledge with the students and the class, as a whole, shares the goal of successful learning. The acquisition of that knowledge may not be equal among the students and the students are more stratified in their success. The teacher shares the goal of success for the students, but achieves that goal in a different way.

His comparative discussion of economy and the corporate social structure and navigation of a ship as discursive was (for me) a little confusing. They both have their own culture, language, guiding policies and goals. I would argue, though, (not that it has anything to do with distributed cognition) that the social structures that establishes the monetary policies of the Bank of Canada, which stabilizes the economy of the country, could change, as the social structure changes.

In this composition by Diaz et al, they are discussing the theory of distributed cognition in the context of these two social structures (ships and banks) which have their various genres, both oral and written, expected language, and social stratification. In the corporate world, each member has a role and purpose and contributes to the communications within that social structure, each from their own level. Unlike the classroom where each student contributes to the knowledge of the class, but overall, do not contribute to the success or failure of the class, as a whole, or the University – if the student drops-out. I would argue this point that the students are the reason the University exists and their retention is the bread and butter (not to mention salaries) of the institution.

As I read this piece, I found myself saying “get to the point” The concept of cognitive discourse and distributed cognition may be applicable as a tool of analysis of structural genres in the real world, it doesn’t contribute to my understanding of methods of writing.

The Flower and Hayes essay discusses the processes that go into writing or composing as a series of decisions and choices. They look at the “stage model” of writing (prewriting, writing, and revision) developed by theorists to explore the process of development of composition. An attempt to discover what goes on in the mind of the writer.

Flower and Hayes have developed a different model that rests on four key points:

1. The process of writing is best understood as a set of distinct thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the writing process.
2. These processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in which any given process can be embedded within any other.
3. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer’s own growing network of goals.
4. Writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating both high level goals and supporting sub-goals which embody the writers developing sense of purpose, and then at times, by changing major goals or even establishing entirely new ones based on what ahs been learned in the act of writing.

I wrote these out to help myself understand their model as they explain it. In all of these essays about the process of writing it always seems like the authors or theorists are trying to establish what comes first (the chicken or the egg?)?

In order to understand where planning or goals setting comes in it is necessary to establish where decisions about language and grammar come in. Is this part of planning or is it part of revision?

I like the model they present because it allows for many “loops” in the process of writing. As Flower and Hayes put it: “A process that is hierarchical and admits many embedded sub-processes is powerful because it is flexible…” (285). the model seems more circular in its concept.

I believe each step of the process has its own goals. The essay offers a model that gives a good sense of goal-directed writing which illustrates how the process of writing occurs. Their use of the actual thought processes of the writers they studied helped develop this theory and, I presume, will help guide the teaching of writing through “process theory”. The problem with this article and the model seems to be the fact that they did not apply it to “student writers” and As Patricia Bizzell points out they didn’t take into account the interpretive conventions of the audience. As much as I had tremendous difficulty reading Ong’s essays, I read his essay on “The Audience Is Always Fiction” several weeks ago and I agree that, the writer must have an idea how the audience will interpret the writing and put themselves into the role of the audience. Which means the writer is making assumptions of the audience that an inexperienced writer may not know how to do. Flower and Hayes do not address this. As Bizzel also points out they have some circular arguments in the defense of their theory. She also mentions that although development of a “scientific theory” would lend credibility to “Discourse/composition studies” in the University community, as long as we are trying to create theory from human thinking, we need to be cautious about excluding the student’s own discourse community while socializing them to the academic discourse community. I cannot see how any one theory can take into account all the aspects that go into expressing ones ideas, whether orally or written. I appreciate Bizzel’s comments about the many ways that composition studies could be investigated.