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.

reading for 3/24

Sorry for the last minute posting.

Reading blog for 3/24/08

This week’s (or last week’s) readings were very identifiable to me. Or should I say, I identified with the concepts, in that I fell like a remedial or, basic writing student. When Shaughnessy talks about her four staged scale, I had to chuckle, because I think I experienced that first stage the first day of class. Isn’t that what Dr.J. was doing when he invited me to drop the class. Me, the only non-English major. Me, the outsider, a science (or Nursing) major. He was “Guarding the Tower”.

I do agree with Ms. Shaughnessy, that it isn’t just the student that needs to, or will change. Teachers are as much affected by their experience with their students and what does or does not work for the students as the students are affected by their experience with the teacher. The student has to learn what the teacher expects from him/her and what to expect from the teacher. Likewise, the teacher has to learn what they can expect from the student. The teacher also must remember that the student has some level of knowledge. I believe it isn’t entirely what they don’t know, but what they do. What they don’t know seems to be how to use what they know, correctly, and how to develop and advance that knowledge and incorporate new knowledge. Shaughnessy seems to be saying that the teacher needs to assess where the student is in knowing language and where he, himself is in knowing writing and language, and begin from there. To develop an approach to teaching writing that puts more emphasis on content than structure and work the meaning of the writing into the student and not the method. The teacher needs to be willing to develop and change himself if he is to develop the student.

I can understand how people like Bartholomae. He is easy to understand, at least, for me, his style of writing is comprehendible. I didn’t have to have a dictionary handy to look up terms that I had never heard before. This brings me to, what I felt, was the point of this essay. He is giving students credit for their attempts at academic discourse even when they don’t know the “language” of that discourse. The student has to assume an authority or privilege that he has not acquired, but makes an attempt to connect with that audience. He notes that writers (inexperienced) will write about their experience with the topic and then try to incorporate the language of the discourse that is needed to pose as member of that community. The essays he discusses “give evidence that the writers are trying to write their way into a new community” (645).

I understand this concept because I have had to write (without being taught how) in the discourse of the nursing community. Sometimes I was the authority, and wrote about topics I knew well and in the language I had mastered. At other times, like, for my graduate studies, as Bartholomae stated, I was aware that something different was required and I mimicked the style and tone and language of other writers in that discipline or level. I did not really understand the discourse, but in making the attempt, learning to take on the role can occur; learning to write from within a specific discourse’. Thinking like English major or a nursing researcher.

Rose’s essays were reminiscent of the learning theory and neurobiology classes I have had in my journey to be an educator. Have there not been any new learning theories on language acquisition and behavioral development since the ‘30’s and 40’s. Piaget’s theories ended with adolescents (males, by the way) and we do have some new theories on adult learning. Rose describes the theories of Witkin on field-dependence and field- independence and a person’s ability to think (and I presume write) abstractly or concretely. I found myself comparing my own abilities with these theories. The trouble with these theories is that I see characteristics from both categories in my thinking and writing. I have to agree with Rose, these theories have their limits and contradictions.

Then he begins a discussion on literacy. I believe he ultimately concludes that the concepts of literacy and cognition are very complex and researchers and theoreticians need to consider carefully all the implications of social influences, dynamic processes and situational dimensions when researching and developing teaching frameworks for composition.

Literacy has always been an uncomfortable concept for me, probably because I see the limitations of the term. One short example; thinking back to the development of the Western Frontier… the native Americans that were hired (used – hired implies payment) as guides for the European explorers could not read or write, therefore they were considered illiterate, but they could read tracks from animals, they could read weather patterns in the sky, they could navigate by the stars, they could communicate by smoke. Who were the illiterate ones? Wasn’t it the Europeans, since this was the society of the Native Americans? I guess this is what is meant by codes- symbolic cues to a language (?)

The second essay by Rose, Language of exclusion had me back with the discussion from Harvard. The students are coming in to the university setting so unprepared that in order to have them capable of writing for the academy we must “remediate” or reteach them. Is English a skill (the use of the language?) And why is the writing course considered the remediation by which the student will “relearn” how to use the English language. (I think it demonstrates that one learns composition by writing).

Why does that make the writing class lower in status within the University?

Here are my thoughts on English as a skill and writing as remediation from the perspective of nursing as a course of education. If a student comes into the University to study nursing (it could be medicine, or biology or other science, I using my frame of reference) It is acknowledged that the student will have had some study in biology and other natural sciences, of a basic level. They are not “retaught” but, rather, expanded upon. The first semester nursing student is not expected to have the knowledge, understanding or skills as a third semester nursing student. Nursing requires “a set of skills” as well as knowledge and the ability it apply that knowledge. Critical thinking needs to be nurtured, and developed in the student nurse. At the end of the educational experience, the student is expected to be able to pass a test that certifies that the student has the knowledge, skills and capacity to think like a nurse. All of the classes in nursing school are stratified and build on one another; even fundamental classes are not considered to be lower in status, but necessary to the continuation of the student through the other classes. They are ALL considered in the nursing department.

My question is why can’t writing and composition be considered stratified, taught in a progressive manner and incorporated throughout the educational goal of a degree in English? Is it, perhaps that a degree in English is so content laden, that writing and composition take up too much time and have to be considered “outside” of English? Perhaps a restructuring of what is really required for a degree in English is what is needed. No easy task. Nursing and Medicine have had the same dilemma for decades. But they have not disowned any of their components. (Nutrition could be the exception) Again, a fundamental component of health and wellness and recovery, Nutrition has become a discipline unto itself. Perhaps that is the argument and I am not seeing it? Where do composition and writing want to be in the university curriculum? Part of or separate from English? Another discipline or adjunct to an English degree. What am I missing here?

annotated bibloiography

Annotated bibliography for English 701

Patricia Waters-Decker

March 20, 2008

I have chosen to compare the scientific discourse of Florence Nightingale with her personal writings and, also with her contemporaries, other women science writers of her time.
This was a difficult project for me, as I discovered that there was a need to look at the sociology of that time as well and I have never written this type of Bibliography before. I have more references, but we were only required to provide 6-8.

1. Benjamin, Marina, Editor. “Science and Sensibility: Gender and scientific Enquiry, 1780 – 1945”. Basil Blackwell. Oxford, UK. 1991.

This book is a compilation of chapters by various authors, distinguished in their disciplines as Biologists, Chemists, philosophers and Historians. Ms. Benjamin is an author of several articles on the history of science and women.

This book raises the questions and investigates 1) the relationship between the sexes and how they “became enshrined as natural laws”? 2) How were gender relations scientized? And 3) how can feminists interpret the relationship, actual and symbolic? (p.2)

The chapters give an historical perspective of the many influences on the sciences, politics, gender relations and the ascribed roles of men and women in Victorian society (1870) to post war 1945. It is divided into three parts:

1) Women practitioners of science

2) Gender representation in science

3) Science and feminism.

Ms. Benjamin acknowledges that, in 1991, “the relevance of the natural sciences to major issues of concern with women’s history has only recently been recognized” (p 23). Science has its roots in patriarchy and women in science have been overlooked by historians and feminist scholars alike. The existing literature of the time concerned itself with the sociology of women in science, not their contributions to the fields.

Historians like Margaret Rossiter (p.3) looked at the struggles and strategies of survival of women scientists in America. Her work reviews the gender stratification; the difficulties women face gaining access to education and training in science and the prejudices they face when they succeed. Her work reveals the special survival strategies these women had to develop because of their transgression of traditional female boundaries.

The chapter titled “Women, Medicine and Sanitary Reform I had hoped, would be the focus of my interest in this book, since this is where Florence Nightingale made her mark, but, by the author’s direct admission “There will be one major omission, the work of Florence Nightingale. Albeit she is now generally associated with nursing …But while she was by far the most successful woman in sanitary reform in Victorian Britain, she was quite exceptional in working… in the male areas of engineering and government administration. Her sanitary work really demands a chapter of its own.”(p 63). So I examined the rest of the book to find some very pertinent coverage of the area on male dominance of science, women’s perceived role in science (more as subject and objects for investigation and most of their contributions marginalized). Darwinism perceived the female brain as being too small and unevolved to accommodate the concepts of logic, problem solving and reasoning, but only evolved sufficiently to reproduce and nurture.

I felt it was important to understand the viewpoint of the Victorian era on science, women and women in science to be able to understand the writing of Florence Nightingale. Her position in her world was influenced by her society, her religious beliefs and her family, all of which she defied. I want to look at the various publications she wrote to see how they differed from the norms of her times and if they differed from each other, based on her “audience” or genre.

2. Gates, Barbara and Ann Shteir. (Eds). “Natural Eloquence: Women reinscribe science”. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. 1997.

This is another collection of essays by authors and distinguished Professors of English, Teaching and Research, Humanities, Geology, Women’s studies; Literature and Linguistics form various Universities and Colleges around the world. This book discusses the popularization of science and the writings of women in science to bring science, in their vernacular, to audiences beyond the elite and learned cultures. The editors acknowledge that the “Women question in science” and the “science question in feminism” have caused the writing of women in popularization of science to be overlooked. In recent years, feminist researchers on women, gender, and the history of women and science have amassed evidence to document ways in which gendered thinking about women and science has limited access to scientific cultures (p 4).

This book acknowledges the contributions of some of the same authors from my first reference, but I found, that Ms. Gates and Ms. Shteir have tapped into essays that reveal how the women writers managed to “get around” some of the negative opinion of society involving women science writers. They did not write for publication in the scientific journals, but rather to the public. By writing, in periodicals, to the uninformed, women and children, staying within the realms of “natural sciences and religiosity, they managed to make popular science writing an accepted profession. (I think it was because they were not trying to compete with men).

Stephan Jay Gould writes, in chapter 2, about the “Invisible Woman”. He begins with his experience of reading a revised (and official) version of the history of twentieth Century Russia, which excludes Joseph Stalin. He cannot conceive how, even if they didn’t agree with his politics and/ or exploits they could simply ignore that he ever existed. This is how he feels history has been written about cultural evolution – to the complete exclusion of women, making them invisible. Until recently (1904), women were not admitted to scientific societies. Even then they played subsidiary roles. “Women with scientific interests were therefore confined to a narrow range of marginal activities, away from (or at least auxiliary to) the centers of prestige and innovation in research and publishing (p.29).

The book goes on to include the works of many women writers of the 1800s and 1900s. Florence Nightingale is not mentioned in this book, but I feel that, again, by understanding the attitudes of the society of her time, and the writings of some of her contemporaries, I will better understand her writings.

3. McDonald, Lynn; editor. “Florence Nightingale on Society and Politics, Philosophy, Science, Education and Literature: Volume 5 of the Collected works of Florence Nightingale.” Wilfred Lauriel University Press. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 2003.

This volume incorporates a collection of letters, publications, and manuscripts written by Florence Nightingale from a total of over 150 archives, and private collections world wide. Many of the writings and letters related to the topics in the title are accompanied by introduction from the editor, Ms. Nightingale’s contemporaries and mentors. The introduction to this volume chronicles her life and work and introduces one of her earliest mentors of statistics, L.A.J. Quetelet.

The Editor acknowledges that “roughly one quarter of this volume deals with the Nightingale/ Quetelet connection either directly using his work or, at least, how she was influenced by him” (p.11). In this volume many of her notes and accompanying statistics are used to exemplify how she developed her theories and how she attempted to utilize Quetelet’s methodology.

Letters from friends and mentors are included and with some of her diary entries and letters to others, we are given an in depth look into the thinking and working of Florence Nightingale. The final chapter of this book talks about her extensive library and love of literature. Her letters often quote from various pieces or offer recommendations for the reading of one or another of her favorites. She did not read that she did not take/make notes.

Ms. Nightingale was a prolific writer and correspondent. She wrote about everything with which she was associated. She made copies of all her personal correspondences and careful volumes of her publications and left them to the executors of her estate, presumably to be destroyed after her death. How could she have know that her every thought and word would be memorialized by historians, biographers and feminist writers 100 years in the future?

4. Bullough, Vern, Bonnie Bullough and Marietta Stanton, Editors. “Florence Nightingale and her Era: A collection of new scholarship”. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York, N.Y. 1990.

This book is a result of a multidisciplinary conference (date not given) at the University of Buffalo, which was designed to bring together Nurse researchers, biographers and other writers exploring the life and work of Florence Nightingale, the role of women and the development of nursing from 1850- 1910. The work presented at the conference was so impressive that the developers invited all the presenters to submit their presentations for publication. This is a compilation of some of those works.

The presenters offered a multidimensional view of the life and times of Ms. Nightingale and this book offers an even more intimate look into the private life of Ms. Nightingale – Flo-to her friends. Contrary to popular opinion, nursing was not her main effort in her post-Crimean life. The authors note that she was “not only a self-sacrificing heroine, but a manipulative, often erratic, and dedicated woman who spent a great deal of the last sixty years of her life in bed, from where she could control the people in her life”.

To my surprise, modern nursing was not developed with Ms. Nightingale’s direct input, but rather, influenced by her ideas and concepts which were carried on by those that came after her. Nightingale’s focus was on sanitation, the moral character of nurses and their education rather than training. (Emphasis mine). Although, she argued against “medical lectures’ as disruptive to their main purpose, to care and advocate for the patient. She felt an emphasis on physiology would make them “assistant Doctors”.

It is through her correspondences that we get this portrait of a woman staunchly independent, encouraged by her mentors and peers, and yet influenced by Victorian principles of submissiveness, domesticity, piety and purity, which, according to Janet Bryant and Kathleen Colling in their chapter, Broken wills and tender hearts: Religious ideology and the trained nurse in nineteenth century, remain with us today (p. 164).

I liked this book because of the alternative view and diverse opinion of the authors on the life of Ms. Nightingale who could be as sharp and caustic with her colleagues and benefactors as she could be with her underlings.

This book also gives us a look at the development of educational programs for women in the colleges and universities of America. I found the writings reflective of the histories we have been studying on the changing attitudes and methodologies of teaching in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century America.

5. Vincinus, Martha and Bea Nergaard, editors. “Ever Yours, Florence Nightingale: Selected Letters”. 1990. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.

This compilation of letters and correspondences gives another intimate look and author’s interpretation of the life of Florence Nightingale. It is not so much a compilation of essays of various authors (as many of the other references are) as it is a compilation of selected letters and correspondences with historical and editorial commentary illustrating various aspects or historical accounts of Ms. Nightingale’s life (and thoughts about her life). It is another view into her life and is somewhat repetitious. I will most likely use this reference to compare her writing to friends with writings to professionals or government officials. Some of the other resources have more extensive writing to her professional colleagues.

6. About.com http://www.about.com/ retrieved from the Internet 3.15.08. is a web site – directory that I retrieved from the internet when I googled Florence Nightingale. Among many topics, the website provides many pages and references to Florence Nightingale and other noteworthy women in nursing. The page I was interested in is on Women’s rights as seen through the eyes of Florence Nightingale. (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/nightingale/a/fn_womens_right.htm)

The page opens with a quote from one of her Ms Nightingale’s publications on Nursing: Notes on nursing, what it is and what it is not. (1888). I have requested this publication from the Lied Library as they do not have it in their publication list, it will come from another lending library. Another page that may be part of my final paper, http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/nightingale/a/nightingale_san.htm which is from the writings of the Western Sanitation Commission of 1874 on Ms Nightingales’ influence on the sanitation situation on America, at that time.

Generally this website provides access to various publications and articles on Florence Nightingale and links to other websites about her and her writings, as well as other writers on the same topics. I will use this website as a resource for references on nineteenth century female authors on scientific discourse. (as it applies to my topic) I have yet to fully explore the various links to publication of other contemporaries of Ms. Nightingale and will do so, if I find I need them for my paper. I am not very adept in navigating these types of websites and often get distracted from my original search.

7. Shuttelworth, Sally, Gowan Dawson, Richard Noakes; “Women, Science and Culture: Science in the Nineteenth-Century Periodical” Women: A Cultural Review 12.1 (2001). Website accessed: 22 Mar. 2008.

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09574040110034129

This article is a discussion of the discoveries of women writers of the nineteenth century in “periodicals” and the development, in this journal, of an index to these periodicals. As the author points out “Women writers, like the majority of men, would usually have gained their understanding of evolution, or other major scientific issues, not from primary texts, but from discussions in periodicals”(p. 58). This was one of the ways that women could write about scientific topics and their understanding without recourse from the scientific community. In fact some of the male scientists [of the time] wrote about their findings in Periodicals before they submitted to their professional journals. This was alluded to in my second reference as one of the strategies that women found to write about their interests in Science. They could disguise their scientific knowledge in “fictional” stories or stories for children or popular domestic topics for women of the time. By not trying to publish in the scientific journals, they avoided the backlash of the male writers of those publications.

By examining the popular cartoon periodical “Punch”, an espoused misogynist and “wife-beater”, the author is surprised to find that some of the writings are supportive of women in the roles of Physicians and Nurses. Celebrating the works of Florence Nightingale and offering “backhanded’ compliments for the acquisition of medical degrees of Elizabeth Blackwell and Emily Davies; declaring that a physician for a wife is a “treasure indeed” since she would attend to her husband in sickness and save him the expenses of attendance by a physician on his
ignorant, hypochondriacal wife (p.60). This is the type of reference I was looking for to gain more insight to 19^th century writing and discourse. I will most likely use this resource to guide my analysis of the writings of Ms. Nightingale as they compare to other popular writers of that time.

8. Skinner, C. "The Purity of Truth: Nineteenth-Century American Women Physicians Write About Delicate Topics.” Rhetoric Review, 26(2), 103-119. (2007). 20 Mar, 2008.

Author Carolyn Skinner has discovered thirty-six advice texts and pamphlets written between 1847 and 1902, which she has reviewed to show that the women science writers used this means to communicate delicate topics and maintain “respectability” and femininity (p.102). By identifying with wives and mothers, these American Women Physicians maintained their femininity; also, by framing their advice for the health of the family, which as women, they were aught to do. By writing “advice texts”, rather than scientific texts, they connected with a much wider audience. By associating health with morality they could model ways in which to pass information on sex, sexuality and reproduction (delicate topics) to women and adolescents and not damage their reputations (p.117). Physicians- writers like Alice B. Stockham, Elizabeth Blackwell, Emma Drake and Mary Allen-Wood were able to reach a much wider audience than they would have if they presented their knowledge by giving lectures on a tour circuit and they would have incurred the wrath of the male physicians that saw this as their domain of teaching (103-04). According to Ms. Skinner, “The popularity of advice texts written by women physicians suggests that they constitute a significant body of rhetoric composed by women at this time, a body of texts with important implications for how we think of Nineteenth-century women rhetors and, by extension, of women writing science today (104).

I chose this article as an example of scientific discourse of American Women in medicine. By writing in this genre, women physicians had more influence on the discourse of scientific writing than they would have in addressing a professional audience. Their influence on women and families gave them the authority to advise and direct the health of the community and promote their own professionalism. This article provides an example of cross-cultural discourse in scientific writing to compare with the writings of Florence Nightingale and her European contemporaries.

style, evaluation and grammar,Oh my!

Blog for Eng 701

Grammar, style and Evaluation

Connors reviews composition studies aver the first fifty years of the nineteenth century. As he says, this was a time when the “New Country” (emphasis mine) was “striving to define itself as a culture… which included education and language” (61).

He identifies the fact that throughout most of its history, College English composition has meant only the “single-minded enforcement of standards of mechanical and grammatical correctness in writing” (61). He tries to identify when this transformation took place that changed Rhetoric into composition and transformed instruction from “wide ranging techniques of persuasion and analysis to a narrow concern for convention on the most basic level” He called it a stultifying “error hunt”.

We again review the influence of the Eastern schools’ elitist intellectualism that was happing and the classism it was creating. The American renaissance was seeing the development of writers and poets and with the expanding frontier; the emphasis became the proper use of the English language (or at least the Americanized version); As the American intellectual community rallied against the book written by Henry Alford, “A plea for the Queen’s English”. They did not argue that the intellectual use of English deteriorated, but disagreed with why.

The burden of socialization, being seen as the responsibility of colleges, directed the change in emphasis to reflect the new cultural attitudes and social goals. This changed the traditional teaching of rhetoric as abstract mental discipline to more immediate instructional goals. Elementary instruction took over and the teaching of good writing meant error-free writing. The effect of the Harvard Standard pervaded and college English courses became “obsessed” with eliminating error. This was also, as we have read before, an easier aspect to grade as the workload was so demanding for the instructors of the period. The writing teachers at the end of the century (1880-1890) were forced to substitute scanning for errors in place of full readings. At this time the handbooks began to develop, which was reminiscent of the “rule books of Rhetoric of the pre- renaissance era. (History repeats itself?) In the Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing they discuss the “Medieval reshaping of classical heritage…the classical texts being prescriptive, providing rules for achieving effective speeches. …”Many medieval texts consisted entirely of lists of rules and examples illustrating them” (5).

Connors does an excellent job of presenting the historical overview as well as the referenced influences of the times to explain the process that occurred that changed the way rhetoric was taught (and is still taught “by the book” in some colleges). It is understandable that the demands on the teachers both in the number of students they had and the expectations of the competencies of the students by other “experts in the field” would force them to have to “give-up” the more traditional teaching of rhetoric. This makes it understandable how changes occurred to move writing and composition out of English departments in some schools. I agree with Shaughnessy, that mechanical correctness is necessary as it “takes away” from the content of the written piece, but, as Connors points out, a balance is needed to teach both formal and mechanical aspects of writing and composition. How and when seems to be the continuing dilemma. It seems that there has always been a “see-saw” [of teaching rhetoric and composition] between concepts and content.

I get the impression that some people don’t like Peter Elbow’s philosophy or ideas. I liked his essay, or I should say I liked his tone and frankness in the piece. He writes with an informal tone that is easier for me, the unenlightened to English studies, to understand. He identifies his feelings about academic discourse with direct, straightforward comments –“I love…I hate”. He defines academic discourse as I am familiar with it, and as I expected English classes to be taught (Freshman English, anyway), as he defines it, teaching students how to write papers for other courses, in academic language and style, to be successful in their academic careers. He state that this is especially important to poorer, unprepared students, students that are, perhaps, the first in their families to come to college. To not prepare them for the tasks of learning to communicate in the language of academia would be doing a disservice to them. Then, why does he “hate” academic discourse?

At first he defends the need to teach academic discourse for the success of the student, than he tears it down saying he would rather teach them how to write about their lived experiences – Rendering. (More about that later). I like how he says Life is long – college is short”. He believes that student will not write academic discourse, once they are out of school and he would rather teach them how to write about their lives. I challenge his argument, though, that no one writes unless compelled to. Internet blogging, e-mail, and phone texting belie this. As he describes the many way students write, I wonder if he would include these things (blogging, texting and e-mail) as testimonials to successful writing courses.

In his essay he proposes three goals for teaching writing

1). Get students to write “by choice”

2). Get them to render experience (rather than just explain or narrate)

3). Teach non-academic discourse as a means of improving academic discourse.

He illustrates these goals as having students write in their own language about what they are studying. He feels that the student can write in the language of the discipline and still not understand it. They should write about it as they understand it; how the subject or topic effects their life or their world around them. (Nursing calls this “critical thinking”). He talks about most students being non-majors in English, taking only the required two semesters or classes in English. That is me. I never gave the study of English any more thought than I was required to, but I do remember how it prepared me for writing in other classes, specially nursing. He discusses the fact that English teachers are not qualified to teach academic discourse in other topics, in fact there are many discourses in the field of English studies.

He describes the “German Bulldozer” tradition of citing and quoting to support your argument or opinion (he’s very good at this). In my short “graduate” experience this is how I am interpreting the method by which I am expected to write papers for nursing. There is no original thought. I have developed my opinions or ideas or theories – my very thinking- based on someone else’s work. Therefore, I must reference a source for almost everything.

Elbow goes on to argue subjective vs. objective discourse. He is very conflicted and presents many points and, quite frankly, started to lose my attention. He quotes Berlin and Flowers and I found a passage that I was familiar with from learning to write for science publications; i.e. “First you say what you are going to say, then you say it, then you say what you said”(144). He is discussing explicitness in academic discourse.

Finally he defends himself and his stance on style and linguistics and state that students should be allowed to write “in their own words” when first learning academic discourse. It is too difficult for them to try to learn the stylistic and linguistic conventions of the discipline at the same time. And he cautions that the student may be able to do so (using all the right “buzz words”) and “learn only to mimic it while still failing to engage fully the intellectual task” (149).

In discussing metocognition and metadiscourse, he again, recommends allowing the student to use their own language or voice. He seems to agree strongly with Flowers concepts of process writing and metogonitive writing as process. I have recently learned this concept and find it difficult to “think out loud” as I write or to “write to myself” about my writing. It feels very foreign and forced. I understand the purpose of it, I am just not very good (or comfortable) with it.

Hartwell's dissertation on the grammars was a little difficult to follow, but I think I got the main points of his essay. He illustrates how the "rules" of grammar are very difficult to apply at times. That grammar is not the same in all languages. For example, in English, the adjectives and adverbs are placed before the noun or verb. This is not the same in other "latin" languages I was surprised he didn't speak to this.He uses the example of articles used with nouns. He discusses the intuitive ability to understand and apply Grammar 1 rules and how it helps and hinders using grammar 2 rules.

How much time would a teacher need to teach all he talks about in "the grammars"? I got lost on his diagrams, and I think this could be an entire course unto itself. He references much research into the teaching of language to non-English and Native English speakers. Is this linguistics or composition. I agree that the correct use of language in writing is important, but I do not have an opinion as to where or how grammar should be taught. I liked his reference to "grammar schools" I thought that I learned everything I needed to know about grammar in "grammar school". Apparently, the research that has been done indicates that what and how writing is taught especially in regard to language, does not change the quality of writing. Time to change the focus of research and writing?

I agree that knowledge and use of language IS power. People are judged on their intelligence by how they express themselves in speaking or writing. Having the command to speak and write in the language of your audience can open or close doors in the business world. The bias is there, there is no denying it, no matter how much we want to believe that it is not.

Transferring the power of learning to the student is a new and important concept. It means the method of teaching must change to allow the student to take the responsibility for what they learn. This changes the concept that students only learn what we teach because we teach it.

Sommers was actually the first article I read. The other article and essays seemed to support what she was saying in this piece. She talks about process and product. She talks about the time commitments of reading and commenting on and grading of students’ papers. But, I think it comes down to which is more important, process or product. I agree that correcting grammar and punctuation when the text may be revised and some of the content may be removed, should be the last step; Perhaps, in the final draft. Meaning and clarity are what the writer wants to say, everything else is how the writer want to say it. The caution against colloquialisms, and identifying the audience, I think, would depend on the medium or genre being used, such as informal blogs, and e-mail, vs. writing for a discipline.

She discusses the correcting and revising process as simultaneous tasks on different levels that can often confuse the student because no clear direction is really given. In one argument she admonishes the teacher for usurping the students’ writing in their editing instructions and then she talks about sabotaging the student’s conviction about the completeness of their drafts in order to help them understand that the something more than grammar and punctuation needs correcting. I thought sabotage was a very strong and negative word to use when, what I think she is trying to say is that the teacher needs to find a way to illustrate to the student (without putting words in their mouths) how to revise or rethink the ideas or concepts they are writing about. It is about the process.

She discusses the vagaries of the teachers’ comments. When I taught Paramedic students, I looked more at the content and concepts and less at the grammar and punctuation. I felt it was more important that they understood the concepts they were working with in the field and not so important that they knew how to spell or punctuate their sentences. They were not going to use complete sentences “out in the field” when writing reports.. If the writing had what I wanted in these areas, I might make a comment about grammar or spelling if it as vital (drug names, anatomical land marks) to the understanding of others ( a different audience, than me).

There was much in these reading with which I could identify because I was familiar and had experience with the concepts and some of the references and writers. I hope I have expressed my understanding of the readings in a way that makes sense. I guess I am one of those students that will edit the daylights out of the spelling and punctuation and not “see” the ideas that need revising.

dissonance blog for Eng 701

As a nurse, I read professional journal articles and published studies of medical and nursing research. Nursing research has been criticized as not true research because it is largely ethnographic, descriptive and philosophical. Nursing research is more often about people, their lived experience, rather than controlled trials of some form of treatment. Is it still research and when written, is it rhetoric?

As a graduate student, I will conduct my own research on a topic and develop a thesis. I will need to document and write about my research. As I have stated before, I have not studied composition since the 1980’s, but I have been “instructed” to the appropriate way of writing a research paper. Nursing at UNLV follows the American Psychological Association formula for writing a paper, and, more importantly, documenting the resources referenced in the body of work. Does this make it good composition?

According to the readings we have been doing and about which we have been blogging, scientific writing is a form or mode of discourse called descriptive, narrative or explanatory. Sometimes it is persuasive if the aim of the paper is to promote the treatment or medication based on the statistical success. The research may promote a theory by which other researchers can conduct their research to prove a hypothesis.

Scientific writing is supposed to fit the definition of objective and non-personal (The aim of the early twentieth century writing teachers in the “new College”). This is difficult to do if the study is descriptive.

Since I have been in this course, I have become interested in the various types of writing and curious about how technical writing fits into the concept of rhetoric. I think it will be interesting to discover (or at least review) the types of scientific writings such as random controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies and other nursing research for the composition styles. Dr. Jablonski has given me some direction as to authors that have reviewed scientific writing, such as Greg Myers’ Writing Biology which, I understand is an analysis of the papers written by two researchers and their efforts to get their papers published. I also want to try to find some information on the writings of Florence Nightingale, the first Nurse researcher. Her contributions to mathematics and statistics gained her a fellowship in the Royal Statistical Society (1858) and The American Statistical Association (1874). It was this work that got the attention of the officials to pay heed to what she cited as the cause of illness and death in the military hospitals in Turkey. She clashed with the military officials, so she went over their heads. She is seen, by some, as a meddlesome, power-hungry socialite who used her Father’s money and influence with the Royal Court to get her way she was also considered a “Feminist Liberal” before the phrase existed. Her writings are from the times we have been reading (the 1850’s through the early 1900’s) I would be curious as to the influence of that era on her writing.

So what will I research for this class? Perhaps the technical writing style of Florence Nightingale compared to present scientific writing? Has it changed? Does anyone care? Nursing has changed and so has the type and volume of research being done. Perhaps researching the various technical purposes of writing for nurses would be more interesting. This is what is being read by nurses today.

Another aspect is technology. Nurses are using communication technology in the hospitals and offices and in the area of education. Many hospitals are using Electronic medical records for interdepartmental communications and nurses need to be savvy with this technology. There is even a specialty of Nursing informatics that involves understanding and being able to use and teach others to use the technology required in a facility. I am also curious to see if more research results are going to be published directly to websites of the researchers rather than wait to be accepted by the various professional journals. If so, how will they be peer reviewed? Will the use of websites change the way research is written and documented? I guess this will be the new Genre of research.

Nurses and nurse educators are using computers to document patient care and PDA’s for resource information at the bedside and in the classroom. There are many programs that make information on medications and the latest treatment modalities available at the fingertips of the nurse and the student. Does this composition style have a name or is it simply another genre of explanatory discourse? I am curious if websites are evaluated for their composition. I know they are evaluated for their accuracy and biases and required to adhere to specific regulations and guidelines developed by the federal government i.e.) Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001: Public Law 106-554, "Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Organizations" http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/reqs_bestpractices/laws_regs/info_quality.shtml

The more I think about this project, the more I am inclined to look at the writings of Florence Nightingale and compare them to the writings of modern day nurse researchers. I am open to suggestions as to the interests of the class.

I would not want to bore anyone with a dry technical writing topic.

blog for 3/03/08 all about the process

The first three articles from Villanueva discussed various aspects of teaching/learning writing. Murray promotes teaching the process of writing, not the product, to evaluate the student’s effort and not worry if the product is ever finished. Teach the process of brining language to life (or life to language). He discusses three stages of writing as prewriting, writing and rewriting and feels that 85% of time is spent in prewriting stage. “The amount of time the writer spends in each stage depends on his personality, his work habits, is maturity as a craftsman and the challenge of what he is trying to say” (4).
He illustrates ten implications for teaching the process which are student focused and process oriented. The student is to be rewarded for the effort put into the process with recommendations for improving the product. He feels that grades stop the process, the same way publication does. The student needs to be allowed to take the time necessary for the creativeness to emerge, with some thought about deadlines but not about how the final piece will be evaluated as correct or incorrect.
Murray speaks with authority, succinctly and to the point. I found his essay easy to read and understand and have no trouble agreeing with him. I can see how this is a very dynamic process, but never having studies or taught “language arts”, I cannot say how it would work. I will be interested in the opinions of others.
Emig follows this with a discussion about writing as a form of learning. She see writing as distinctly unique and corresponding uniquely to powerful learning strategies.
Her discussion includes aspects of philosophy, psychology and neuro functioning of the brain to emphasize her point that by writing, we use more of our brains and therefore, reinforce learning. We learn by seeing, doing and symbology (of language) using the hand, the eye, and the brain. “Writing involves the fullest possible functioning of the brain. A slower process, it utilizes our thoughts to past, present and future. She makes comparisons between learning strategies and selected attributes of writing. She does not say where these strategies were developed. I would assume from one of the language theorists she references, like Viytosky. Luria or Brunner. I feel her analogy is a little “self serving” but she presents an interesting concept and promotes some interesting questions for research.
As a visual and “hands-on” learner, I would tend to agree with her concept that learning to write is best learned by writing (regardless of what is written?) I suppose that the act that we are using “blogs” for presenting our thoughts, that this is an exercise in leaning to write by public writing.
The following two essays by Perl and Sommers were on the comparison of the process of writing of unskilled college students and experienced writers. The first, a study of the composing process and the second on the revision process of the students and writers. Sondra Perl discusses her study of observing students as they write. She developed a tool and coding system to make observable and measurable behaviors in the composing process. I won’t discuss her entire study, just her findings which indicate that 1) students edited frequently for grammatical and other errors, yet still made mistakes. 2) Their editing was superficial and not a reworking of ideas and was disruptive to their thought processes.
These concepts were almost repeated by Sommers. Her study looked at revision of papers by students vs. experienced writers and her findings, I feel, strongly mirror Perl’s study.
The importance of these studies reflects on the processes discussed by the first two articles. It is interesting to me that looking at the way in which students compose their pieces could affect the way teachers expect them to learn. It seems that students write with a methodological approach that has already been ingrained and would need to be changed before new teaching/learning theories are presented. They are writing with evaluation in mind instead of their creativity. The students will need to learn that the teachers are respectful of their creativity more than their lexical, syntactic and grammatical choices.
The Hillock meta-analysis provided an interesting reflexion on the previous article/essays. Through meta-analysis, Mr. Hillock and colleagues review the studies done on experimental treatment for teaching writing over a 19 year period.
The analysis of these studies discovered that none of the most used or favored teaching strategies of that time were effective, and yet that is how students were taught to write. My question is; did the teachers know that their methods weren’t effective or were the strategies not studied well enough to make a determination? According to Hillock, the researchers of that time were against using experimental teaching studies to define and revise teaching strategies. As he quotes Graves (1980) “this research wasn’t readable and was of limited value. It couldn’t help teachers in the classroom. Experimental research is written for other researchers, promotion or dusty archives in language guaranteed for self-extinction”... Teachers cannot transfer the data to the students they teach.
Hillocks challenges, that, if this is true, then there should be little in common among these strategies and they should be studied for that very reason.
The results of this meta-analysis reveled that the most favored teaching strategy (the presentational mode) is not the recommended strategy by the National Writing Project (the natural process mode) and neither of these strategies are the most effective.
The most effective mode seemed to be the environmental mode that “brings together the student, teacher and materials more nearly into balance and takes advantage of all the resources of the classroom” (160). This mode encourages high levels of student involvement, problem solving, using expert examples of good writing and allows students to interact with each other. Many of the traditional methods of teaching writing that were used as experimental treatment studies showed less than effective results. The researchers developed several research questions that, I presume have yet to be answered. The focus of instruction and the mode of instruction together give rise to many other areas for study according to Hillocks. So then, why has the teaching of writing not changed and still includes a focus on grammar and use of language and the mode of instruction is on the use of models and free writing in many schools? I have to admit my ignorance, again. I have not studied the theories that prevail in teaching writing, I am making assumptions from our readings that there has not been a method or strategy developed that can be identified as “the most effective” I also presume as we continue in the “discovery” that we will be able to make our own assertions as to the “best practice”.
This article was helpful to me, even though I did not understand all of the jargon and philosophy discussed, because it gave me a glimpse into the technical features of writing that I have not been exposed to. I was able to understand the concepts and application of the various researchers that we have been reading about from the perspective and insights of other authors. I guess time will tell with whom I agree or disagree.