readings for 2/11/08

Blog for 2/11/08

The first article, “Into the Blogshpere” discussed blogging or public writing for writing students as being more relevant and realistic. The author gives exemplars from other writing instructors, Jerz, Lovas and Walker. Jerz’s use of blogging, his “literary weblog”, I think, is a good example of “modeling” .He uses his blog site to critique other web sites and student could learn these techniques from him. Lovas is an example of both modeling and critiquing, as he uses his blog site for discussing and critiquing professional issues. Walker seems to be using her blog site for feedback for her professional writing and personal issues. The author uses these examples to illustrate the ways in which students can learn the uses and usefulness of blogging for public writing. The article advocates blogging as a way of building community through On-Line discussion. I feel that the on line classroom can also alienate and isolate people, inhibiting development of social skills and truly learning to deal with human emotions and personalities.

Lowe and Williams speak to the social nature of writing (as did the Nystrand article) based on the theories of Flower, Fish et al. At a time when students are just beginning to learn about writing and feel inexperienced and vulnerable; is it fair to expose them to unsolicited criticism from an anonymous public? Teenagers and young adults are very adept with the internet, but we also know that, at times, it can be unsafe. The article discusses the “appeal to a generation who enjoys seeing the private made public”. Citing TV shows like Survivor and MTV’s RealWorld” I would add Maury Povich, jerry Springer and all the “Rag Mag Shows” (as I call them). Why do we lust after the details of Britney Spear’s tragic life? Do we have a generation of voyeurs and exhibitionists (maybe too strong?) that want to share their most intimate personal secrets with the world? And why?

Expanding the classroom into the public forum of the WWW may provide the student with the opportunity for creative, immediate feedback, but may, also, not allow the student to feel like they can make mistakes and write on a deeper personal level, as Lowe and Williams point out. Using a weblog or discussion board like WebCt limits the interaction to the community of fellow students and instructors and provides some structure and allows for selected guidance. The students interact with each other and the teacher and learn from each other. That is not to say that that cannot happen with weblogs. I just feel like the student needs to be given some privacy until they are ready for exposure to the internet. Only the student knows when that is.

In spite of the fact that the internet is becoming the “way of the world” is it possible that it is actually isolating us from each other? In an assignment for communication technology fro another class, I reviewed the history of communication over the ages and the concept of voice communication gave rise to fears that we would no longer know how to write. Now, computer and communication technology has revived writing, in many forms. Now, the question is “will we be able to retain “formal writing”? Is it necessary? With the new “text speak” I wonder what written language will look like by the next generation.

Speaking of “writing in social context”… At first I did not understand the Canagarajah article on “World Englishes (WE). I could not imagine how, if all WE were integrated into composition classes, we could sort, develop and incorporate all the “meshed codes” the author talks about. I have long felt that Native English speakers, Americans and British, specifically, were extremely Ethnocentric in their unwillingness to learn the languages of their neighboring countries; (French and Spanish) in particular. We are also intolerant of poorly spoken English. The author states that English should be a multinational, multicultural Language. Isn’t it? In a country made up of immigrants, we should be very accepting and understanding of a variety of Englishes, after all, we don’t speak the “Queen’s English”. Every area in most counties speaks variations on the “native language” the US is no exception. People from different parts of this country speak different “dialects” with different accents, inflections, idioms and colloquialisms. Can we make our “speech” understandable if we do not have a common written language? Initially I disagreed with Canagarajah. It would be too difficult to develop codes for all the WE. WE need to write in a common formal language.

I then realized that formal written language is not always understood either. This realization came from learning to speak another language. In my work, it has become necessary for me to learn Spanish. I began with, what I call “phraseology”. I learned phrases. That did not help me respond to questions or understand conversations. So, I took formal classes. Twelve years of parochial school French lessons made learning Spanish easier. (I never had to “speak” French). I discovered that the people I was trying to communicate with didn’t understand my “formal Spanish” any better (well, a little) if they were educated. The more educated, the more, I think, they understood my Americanese accent. That really brought home the fact that we don’t write like we speak. I also had a question about the way language has changed over time. Consider the elaborate, poetic and “flowery” language of Elizabethan and Victorian times. An informal letter was so full of passionate language we would wonder about the gender-preference of a Victorian gentleman writing to a male friend. There was much study of the composition of these times.

I found it interesting that ‘national minorities”, described as the group whose history is along as the dominant group, have been given a place in language rights and writing, but other Ethnic minorities have not. Considering how many more people in the world speak a language other than English, why is English the dominant language? (I realize there are many explanations for this.) Considering how many Spanish speaking countries there are in the world, why is Spanish not the “global language”? The author’s examples of other ethnic authors and their influence to bring their context to their writing, such as AAVE and the writings of Smitherman helped me to understand how code switching or hybrid text works. When she began discussing teaching students to explore other grammatical options from other Englishes, it began to make sense. I could see how this could be a pedagogy for composition studies. But, will it work for “high stakes” writing? I enjoyed the author’s textural experimentation to illustrate her point.

Kathleen Yancey’s address to the CCCC in December 2004, for me, anyway, seems to incorporate what the two previous articles were saying. The internet and the WWW are dominant factors in our lives. Students know how to use it and they use it “in their own voice”. (Emphasis mine). It should be a part of composition studies as it is the medium of reality for today’s students. Yancey portrays the future of pedagogy of composition studies by quoting the definition of composition as the” thoughtful gathering, construction and reconstruction of a literate act, in any given medium (Morrison). I think this illustrates that composition has to be seen in many contexts and voices, not just written words in a formally structured language.

If a new philosophy of education is to prepare students for the real world, then education must allow them to use the medium they live in, namely web based interfacing and global interconnectivity. In spite of this, I still think that some formal structure of learning the”canons” of Rhetoric and composition. Practicing in a safe, gated community of the classroom and web based campuses, like Web Ct, will help prepare students for the “deeper waters” of the global community of the internet and multimedia formats (or Genre, as Yancey calls them).

Her article was so much easier to read and understand than Canagarajah’s, which to me, was linguistically abstract. I felt like Yancey was addressing more than members of the CCCC, communicating “across the curricula” I see the phenomena of the internet in Nursing, as patient bring their information to their providers that they have obtained from the WWW. They access their records and communicate with their provider via e-mails and web sites. As nurse educators, we are using the internet for communication between students and faculty and student to students. We are using the WWW for instant and up to date research to support evidence based practice (both in nursing and education). Although we are not putting our learning processes into the public forum, we are learning from each other, sharing our experiences, critiquing each other’s work and the instructor has receded to the background, as a guide. Assessment strategies have changed as well. Yancey states that they must change to incorporate the many genres available for students to be creative. How does nursing relate to composition? Nurses write. They write technical papers, they develop research from story telling, they construct meaning from that research. A nurse can demonstrate “caring” through a poem or montage of pictures. Is this not composition? Teaching composition for any student’s purpose, gives the student the opportunity to construct, or “compose” “a literate act, in any medium”.

The last article (Writing in the 21st Century) was really hard for me to follow. I understand the research process and the importance of studying what is being studied. Was anyone else annoyed by the repetition in the article? It was as if they were” padding” the article to meet some word requirement. How any times is it necessary to state the years that the study covered? My annoyance disrupted my comprehension of the article’s points.

Again, I am reading about the review of chronology of contextual writing and instruction of Nystrand (2006). And in spite of earlier repetitiousness, the article helped me to understand the research in writing and writing education. It brought together, statistically, what I had been reading in the other articles, about contextual composition, minority languages and various other aspects of writing. The authors’ study of the five year period by their own admission is limited in its scope of resources, but gives a preliminary picture of the areas of writing education that are being studied thoroughly and those that are not. Writing education in the formative years of language processing and identity development of preschool and young school-aged children seems to be lacking.

As I have not studied composition or writing education, I must admit that these statistics only tell me a superficial story. It does become evident even to an inexperienced educator, that the early years are the most impressionable and how children learn to speak, read and write is important (as the researchers stated) to the development of writing in later years. It is stating the obvious to say that more research in these areas is needed.

I welcome your comments.

Patti w.

discussion for 2/4/08 Theories on Rhetoric and composition

Discussion blog for 2/04/08

Brereton, John C. “Introduction.” The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, 1875

Hill. Adam Sherman. “An Answer to the Cry for More English

“A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition.” The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing.

Nystrand, “Where did Composition Studies Come from

As it has been more than twenty years since I have done any studies in “English” I had to do a little research to understand some of the language in these articles. Wikapedia and I have become good friends.

The first article I read was the “Brief History of Rhetoric and composition. I found this to be a good historical review for me. I had heard the names of the ancient Greek philosophers, Isocrates, Plato and Aristotle, but had not associated them with anything but “Philosophy”. I suppose they philosophized about Rhetoric. Not meaning to trivialize the piece or its intent or my reason for reading it, I appreciated the historical perspective offered in this piece.

Philology was term I had never heard. Now I understand that this is something I have always done (to investigate then meaning or root of a word or language)…” In modern usage, the term "philology" is most accurately defined as "an affinity toward the learning of the backgrounds as well as the current usages of spoken or written methods of human communication." I had to practice a bit of “philology” to understand the readings for this assignment and have always been interested in word origins and meanings. This is most often referred to as “Linguistics”.

I was under the impression that Rhetoric was rather “purposeless” speech. “I hear a lot of rhetoric from him, but don’t see any action”. Now we would call this “lip service” This article helped me to understand the progression from the ancient study of the spoken word, or discourse, for the purpose of deliberative, forensic or epideictic, (Political, legal or honoraria) to the modern concepts of teaching communication in its many forms within present University settings. We still use the term “Socratic questioning” as a form of formative evaluation in teaching.

The article briefly discusses the many key people, dates and events that occurred throughout the millennia that helped develop the theories and principles of the spoken and written word and the methodologies for teaching and evaluations. It was interesting to see the seemingly cyclical thoughts on the subject the discourse being directed to the purpose and audience. And the language of the society as in Ancient times to medieval times with the influence of the Church ad Church/States and then in the theories of the 1960’s, where teachers were encouraged to help students use their own voice and to shape their ideas through writing.

The Bedford article was a “whirl-wind” tour through the evolution of Rhetoric and composition whereas the Nystand article was a very in depth look at the process of change that has occurred over the past forty years.

The Brereton article “Origins of compostition” looks at the development of college and university departments of “English” and several of the celebrated founders. The authors discusses the theorists and scholars the shaped the structure of the departments and the programs of instruction as they were influenced by the European programs of the times. The German influence was the strongest on shaping the American graduate schools and had many indirect effects on the undergraduate programs in rhetoric and composition. The article outlines the influences on the division of the departments of rhetoric, composition and writing, denigrating the position of composition to the first year. Making it a fundamental course and giving it the reputation of being a “remedial” course transitioning student from secondary education to college. Harvard had the most influence on how departments of English were set up and the feeling I got from this article is that the “Harvard” system was regimented and rigid with a distinct hierarchy of Rhetoric and literature for the professors and teaching of writing and composition taught by the part-time staff or graduate assistants. The discussion on the “Harvard Admission” criteria gave an idea as to how demanding and structured this program was.

The article “An Answer to the Cry for More English” makes Hill sound like a “Bully”, but the article discusses a contemporary theme we have seen repeatedly in secondary education; the failure of preparatory education to adequately prepare student for college learning. This was decried in the 1960’s (Why can’t Johnny Write”) and we hear this today.

The article looks at the structure of evaluating composition and writing by its elements. Hill’s tirade on the failures of the students and the secondary programs and his opinion that the Only objective in writing is the use of “good English” would, today be considered almost racist. It is certainly ethnocentric.

The Nystand article begins with what sounds like “A cry for More English”; a critique on the teaching of writing and the knowledge of teacher in how to teach writing. (History repeats itself? Or did it never change?) The article travels through the theories of the 1950’s to present and some of the concepts resonated strongly for me.

The theory of formalism, which began developing in the 1920’s looked at written texts as being addressed through analysis of text elements and their interrelationship between them. Formalism “assumed an objectivity of text elements, contending that all important issues about text and text meaning could be addresses through analysis of text elements and their interrelationships. I found this reminiscent of the Puritanical theory of Peter Ramus from the 16^th century in that Ramus hoped to define rhetoric as a “logical, scientific discourse, untainted by nonlogical appeals” The four concepts of formalism raised many questions of me (and others, as I was to find out).

1. Language is composed of objective elements organized into a fixed system. (all languages?)

2. the meaning of texts is encoded in “autonomous” texts themselves and is explicit to the extent that the writer spells things out. (this assumes that the reader understands these codes. It also does not allow for any imagination or interpretation of the reader.)

3. Written tests are more explicit than oral utterances. (no emotions here!)

4. texts are properly interpreted only when readers avoid inferences about the writer or the context in which the text was written. (this makes me think about my “auto correct that doesn’t know that “form” should have been “from” or the typist that doesn’t “read” what they are typing, so how can the text have meaning. I guess that was the issue: to develop a formula for evaluating texts.).

This formula and theory (to me, an unenlightened student of composition studies) is incomprehensible. It is saying, to me, that Shakespeare’s Henry V and A Midsummer’s Night Dream could be analyzed exactly the same as Rev. Martin Luther King’s Speech “I have a dream” with no regard as to the social, political or personal context of the writer or reader. (of course, the reader must understand the context of the writer to understand the meaning of the work. I did not “get” the double entendre of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet until I read an interpretation of it.)

I agreed with Bakhtin’s dialogical and sociological view that regards language “as a social practice rooted in material and historical processes” (p. 269). Some languages don’t have words for some Western concepts and some have words that incorporate a complete concept. This is later expressed as “social-epistemic rhetoric” of the 1980’s (p.271) which embraced the notion “rhetoric is a political act involving dialectic interaction engaging the material, the social, and the individual writer with language as the agency of the mediation”. I think this would apply to evaluating any work, written or spoken, in whatever the language of the writer. The study of Rhetoric didn’t begin in English or with American political ideations. The evolution of thought as to what rhetoric “is” and how to teach it had to change with the changing social, political and ideological environment of the times.

I liked what was said later by Linda Fowler considering “construct of meaning” that” mental representation is not always linguistic; it may be kinetic or imagistic (p.283) (– dance or art). In this age of visual media, especially the internet, composition is, again taking on new forms and expression. I also could relate to the composition scholars of the 1970’2 and 1980’s that looked at “language as community” especially Shaughnnesy (1977). Her work looking at student’s interaction within the academic community and nontraditional students. She observed that student’s failure was not necessarily “cognitive” but could result from the students” lack of practice and familiarity with the forms and conventions of academic discourse.” Also, the misinterpretation of instructions; Sometimes the student does not understand the expectations of the teacher.

My interpretation of this is that writing should be taught “for the subject”, as I believe we have in our academic community. Writings such as we are reading for these classes are very different from the readings and writing I must do for other subjects, in other disciplines. Even the style formulations different, MLA vs., APA. Again, the “discourse” must be adapted to the purpose and audience (back to the basics).

Conclusion:

Much discussion was given to the many and varied theories and theorists from ancient times to the present. Nystand emphasizes the concepts from the 1970’s and the “social” nature of writing. The table on page 302 was helpful to me to understand the evolution of the theories referenced in the reading.

My interpretation of these articles and excerpts results in the following:

Present theorist in writing and composition seem to agree that writing must reflect the experience of both the writer and reader and that there is no one GOOD theory or formula for evaluating and teaching written discourse.

The questions remain: 1). How do we teach writing – for any purpose?

2). How do we teach people to analyze and evaluate student composition? 3). Should there be or is there an appropriate formula?

Sorry it is so long worded !

Patti W.

my first blog post

Hi all,
This is my first blog post. If it seems a little niave, that's because I am new to blogging.
this blog site will be dedicated to the discussin of English Composition and theory. ( too boring?). well, let's see what we can do about that!
I invite your comments to my posts and I will return the favor. I am also new to hgher ed. English studies, last class being in 1980. (Wow, were you alive then?) So, my posts on the subject will probably be dry. I am open to suggestion in how to make them more interesting.

See you on-line! I need to go write something.


Patti W.