On "Responding to Student Writing"

Sommer’s research in “Responding to Student Writing” feels implicitly connected to the idea of “Process, not Product.” This essay has assisted in further shaping my ideal pedagogy in that it presents the student as one who is truly open to, and capable of learning, and as someone seeking guidance from the instructor. In short, teachers must change their attitudes towards students; how they view students.

I believe that part of my job as a writing teacher is to help students feel comfortable with and understand that revising is an important part of the process. A writing teacher named Ron Estes once told me, “All writing is re-writing.” And so, I can foresee incorporating revision activities, such as what Sommers suggest, where the whole class is engaged in “revising a whole text or individual paragraphs,” not so much to alleviate anxiety about reducing “a finished” product to “fragments and chaos,” but so that they begin to understand that a well written product takes time¸ and that even the best writers sometimes need to modify, correct and rework a piece of writing.

Also, in the piece by Peter Elbow in his on “Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking,” he gives alternatives to simply “ranking” student work by giving an arbitrary grade. I like the idea of a student portfolio so that students can have a body of their work to compare, see improvements or areas where improvement may be needed. The only problem I see with a portfolio is that it would be the end of the semester before a student could see the benefit of the portfolio. I created such a portfolio in an advanced creative writing class, but in a composition class, I’m not sure the student could reap the benefit early enough to improve, and well, make the grade they desired to make.

On "Basic Writing Pedagogy"

Deborah Mutnick’s overview of basic writing pedagogy was most poignant for me in that, it seemed less theoretical, and more practical in its analysis of potential writing students. Of particular interest was her assessment of Mina Shaugnessy’s work in the field, specifically with regards to Shaugnessy’s view that basic writing errors are “a sign of intention and intelligence” (186). This approach, I believe, might be better in determining a student’s ability, and puts the teacher in a better position to recommend a course of study that might help the student improve.

When I consider “basic writing errors,” I am thinking of errors in grammar, sentence structure, or perhaps punctuality. Mutnick cites Mary Epes who attributes basic writing errors to “encoding processes” (187). I like Epes’ view that “encoding,” which has to do with “the visual symbols of written language,” is not the same as “composing” (187). I relate “encoding” to what I call the mechanics of writing, which I believe is a skill that can be taught. I believe that many students have in their mind what it is they want to express, but get caught up with the “encoding”
(187). I agree with Epes that “transcribing and editing” are skills that should be emphasized with regularity, as even more experienced writers can sometimes be prone to mistakes.

Also, the section concerning the research on cultural difference, the “social turn” in composition studies, was interesting. Mutnick cites Peter Rondinone who asserts that students might have to “abandon friends and family in order to acquire literacy skills,” and, Keith Gilyard, who concludes “that biculturalism and bidialectalism are not only possible but preferable to abandoning one’s culture and language of origin” (190). Reading the experiences of these men reminded me of the W.E.B. DuBois quote and theory about “double consciousness”. I truly believe that African Americans have always had to navigate back and forth between the cultural and linguistic reality of their personal lives, and the academic and social world of the dominant culture. This idea was expressed in the poem by Paul Laurence Dunbar¸ “We Wear the Mask,”

We wear the mask that grins and lies,
It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,—
This debt we pay to human guile;
With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,
And mouth with myriad subtleties.

Of course, Dunbar was referring to the social climate of his time which required blacks, who were discriminated against and subjected to Jim Crow laws, to hide their true feelings from public scrutiny in order to have a minimal amount of social mobility. But, Gilyard’s personal experience is an extension of this necessity to negotiate between worlds in order to succeed academically.

On "Community Service Pedagogy"

In the essay on community service learning, Laura Julier reports that some “see in service learning the appropriate pedagogical complement to educating for civic virtue and democratic citizenship” (134). And, while encouraging students to participate in community and service projects is a noble and worthy undertaking, is it realistic or even fair, to require this extra effort to learn to write; particularly when they can instead take a composition course from the professor down the hall who only requires them to find their own process? Interestingly, colleges and their career centers are providing information on opportunities to work in the nonprofit arena, opportunities to do service work during spring breaks and summer vacations, and composition course focusing on community service would be a perfect complement to students who have a desire to involve themselves in this kind of activity. And, writing for nonprofits could, in fact, be a very viable career alternative. A composition course offered expressly for someone looking to work in that field might be ideal. But, commitment to service and volunteering is a personal choice, and to require that of someone who might be reluctant would feel like an imposition of a teachers’ own personal, activist lifestyle on the education of her/his students.

With regard to the types of assignments given to students in Julier’s pilot program, the “public announcements...job application manual” and “articles for newsletters” sounds like the perfect training ground for someone interested in technical writing or advertisement, but seems contradictory to the more traditional assignments done in Julier’s class such as the analysis and discussion of “literary and historical texts” and “writing in response to them” (139). And, the writing projects done for social agencies seems even further away from the writing students might be expected to do in those disciplines that complain that teachers aren’t teaching students to write.

On “Technology and the Teaching of Writing”

In the discourse on “Technology and the Teaching of Writing” Charles Moran talks about the characteristic casualness and intimacy of email. It is largely for these reasons that I would not favor using email as a discussion tool for assignments, and most certainly not for discussing student grades, which I consider to be a private matter. (I’ve known professors who won’t even accept email except from student email addresses issued by the school in order to be able to trace email for any possible legal ramifications.) Though email helps to construct listservs for class discussions, my experience as a student with listserv has not been positive nor did it enhance my learning experience. I also disagree with Steven Krause in “When Blogging Goes Bad” that “email,” over blogs, “offers a much better opportunity for collaborative writing” (332). Again, perhaps it is my old school approach in that email is good for arranging to meet with a classmate to discuss assignments over coffee. I’ve never collaborated on anything through email, which as a teacher, I would reserve for merely communicating information regarding assignments, and making arrangements, perhaps, for appointments beyond my office hours. I would only encourage listservs as a discussion space if students desired to use it as such, and as long as people are respectful. (I’ve seen listservs get really ugly, and become something other than what was intended for the purposes of the class).

I found the passage in Moran’s piece on “Race on the Superhighway” a little disturbing, in that the researchers, Teresa Redd and Victoria Massey, found that black students “used fewer features of the African American oral tradition than we expected, fewer AAE [African American English] grammatical forms and fewer ‘styling’ devices” (216). I can’t imagine why it would be assumed that black students, who are perhaps in college, and obviously computer literate, would speak any differently from any student in the same situation. Rather than being cognizant of “the watchful gaze of the teacher,” as Moran suggest, perhaps they were simply learned American students using the same language that we’ve all been taught to use.

Krause cites Bob Goodwin-Jones in asserting that blogs, as opposed to email, “foster an ownership of text, a personal responsibility for writing” (333). Although I agree that blogs are more “individualistic,” I have seen a couple of really interesting blogs where writers collaborate by each contributing posts periodically. And, while each post is as distinctive as each of its writers, it seems to work nicely, and offers writers the opportunity to be part of a writing team focusing around a specific subject. As far as using blogs to teach writing, I think it would be a good space for freewritng and journaling, but only if it’s possible to blog without publishing on the worldwide web, (and I think there is); I would rather that in order to protect student’s privacy. While I do blog on my own, I frankly don’t like the possibility of work I’m doing for a class, as a student, to be on display for the whole world, at a time when I am only just forming my knowledge, ideas and opinions about a given subject.

On "Writing Center Pedagogy"

In Eric H. Hobson’s discussion on Writing Center Pedagogy, I mostly connected with writing centers as “sites” for “individualized instruction,” and as being instrumental in providing “equal access to education for all students,” particularly for those who, like many non-traditional students, either didn’t have “the best secondary education,” or who last went to school without the benefit of technology, writing centers, etc. I also found interesting the idea of “knowledge” being “socially constructed,” and as such, the “collaborative learning” aspect of writing centers can motivate students, who may be traditionally on the margin, an opportunity to engage the academic community.

However, with regard to those non-traditional students, I think that the technology aspect of writing centers should be gauged according to individual comfort, and only after they have had the advantage of individual instruction. Online writing centers (OWLS) may be essential for accommodating large numbers of student request for lists of grammar and writing tips, links to other online resources, and perhaps even tutorials or writing exercises; nothing can replace one-on-one, individual, human interaction.

Having been a writing center tutor, I believe that it is most certainly an environment conducive to building a strong foundation for good writing skills, and I would, in all likelihood, suggest, and maybe even insist that composition students attend at least one session. I also agree with Hobson that writing center’s provide a training ground for new teachers, and the role they play as “ sites for on-going educational research” and as “training for college and university graduate teaching assistants”. I think it could also be a place for the collaboration, discussion and practice of pedagogical styles among potential teachers.

On "Writing Across the Curriculum"

Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) feels like a back-to-basics approach to teaching composition which I absolutely foresee applying to English 1101. Of the two approaches to WAC discussed in the essay by Susan McLeod, the Writing to Learn aspect would seem most appropriate for a creative writing class however; it would be interesting to use the “exploratory writing,” and perhaps even “free writing,” for students to consider their own ideas and thoughts about literature, as opposed to being told what to think about it. The Writing to Communicate approach, with its emphasis on “Writing to an audience outside the self in order to inform”…and that “the writing therefore is revised, crafted, and polished,” is more traditional, and in my opinion, necessary no matter what field of study.

In the essay, McLeod points to an encounter with a colleague in the history discipline who accused “you people” of not teaching students how to write. That by the “you people” he meant English teachers, I think is a little unfair when we consider that writing varies depending on what discipline one is writing in. Because, there are various styles of writing such as MLA, APA, AP, and of course writing that is produced through technology, perhaps a division of composition classes should be made with regard to each discipline. That is, perhaps there should be History majors who could teach a History Comp 1101, a Sciences majors who would teach Sciences Comp 1101, or even a Comp 1101 which focused primarily on journalistic writing. Rather than making English teachers responsible for teaching composition that spans all disciplines, let teachers in other fields be responsible for teaching the styles of writing their own disciplines.

On "Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments"

I agree with Mary Hocks in “Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments,” that a focus on digital rhetoric in the composition classroom will involve a “profound” change in the way those who want to teach will “think about both writing and pedagogy”. But, again, as with many aspects of higher education, the discussion of Visual rhetoric with regard to digital writing environments, feels like another way to alienate people who just want to learn to write well. Even the language involved in trying to understand a visual rhetoric as it could be taught, I am assuming, with regards to simply using a computer to write, is intimidating, and feels as far away from English 1101, as rocket science.

My computer skills are basic. Sure, I surf the net, occasionally update my status, I’ve even created a couple of blogs and an avatar on Second Life, but language is something more than pictures, colors, fancy forms, and applications. I can envision using aspects of digital writing in a composition class. But, developing an overall Visual rhetorical pedagogy seems important only if you are teaching primarily about digital writing environments.

What I found interesting in the essay on “the Materiality of Writing,” by John Trimbur was the idea of “transparent text,” being communication that lacks an obvious “mode of production;” and that “true literacy” replaces visuality with “abstract representation of sounds”. That the origins of this may come from the bible itself, a book considered to be the actual word of God, a book initially written and published primarily by literate men, reeks of classism, sexism, and insight to the possibility of its use as a tool to control masses of people who were visually literate.