Today's portfolio work...

I've decided that the best way to organize my paper for right now is into categories of introduction, the insider's debate, text vs. discussion, my synthesis, and conclusion. When I reach that point, however, I may decide to put my synthesis and conclusion together if the ideas overlap too much. So far, I have a working introduction, I wrote out the insider's debate, and am almost through the text vs. discussion part, but I still want to incorporate two sources. I may further divide that section into a sort of "what the experts say" and "what the professors/students say." That is one issue I am facing right now.

Today, I will finish the text vs. discussion portion, and before I go any further, I want to print a copy and read through it altogether for coherence. After that, I will continue to synthesize my own ideas and perspective on the issue, probably into a very rough outline of ideas and use that to follow for the last two sections of my portfolio.

still working on the paper...

I got a lot written today, but I need to go back into Elbow's argument and really figure out how it works with my other points. I plan to do that by Friday. Then, I want to go back and make sure everything is really highlighted the way I want it to be.

Working on the paper...

Today I worked on the part of my paper concerning Bartholomae's and Lamott's arguments. I got through that part, incorporating quotes into it as well. Now I want to go back and review Royster's argument before I go into that part of the paper. After I get all three written out, I will go back and add more of my own conclusions based on the three synthesized arguments. After that, I will move on and work with my other sources and on the other side of my argument. I did get a lot of work done today, but I know that I am going to have to go back over my argument several times as I lay it all out, in order to make sure I have not overlooked anything, and that it is cohesive.

Annotated Bibliography Revisions

After looking over my annotated bibliography, and the comments about my bibliography, I want to definitely try to re-organize my sources into more clear classifications that show which sources add to which side of the argument. I may even find it beneficial to use three different classifications. I also want to look at my introduction again and make sure that I have fulfilled all of the requirements and that it is clear where my paper is going. Overall, I want to look at what the best organization for my paper will be, and from there decide how to best organize all of my sources and possibly look into even more sources.

Inquiry Contract

Inquiry Contract

Developing Your Own Voice

1. The issue I am thinking about researching is that of voice; specifically the implications and results of people oftentimes having to assume authority in situations in which they cannot or do not actually have that authority. What I want to know about this topic is how voice is developed and how it can be used in the most beneficial manner possible. The motivating factor for me to know more about this topic is that I think voice is the key to writing. It gives it style and personality, but when someone takes on a voice that is not theirs to assume, I believe many communication errors occur and that creates dissonance between the writer and audience. I want to look at the repercussions of doing just that. How does one feel when they must assume a voice in a certain discourse community that is not particularly their own, and how do the people of that community feel as a result? I also want to try to decide whether this is unnecessary, or a necessary part of the learning process. On a more general level, I want to look at how writers start to develop their own voice, given that they oftentimes have to mock another’s voice in the beginning stages of writing.

2. I think that when someone assumes a role that is not theirs already, they end up coming to conclusions based upon stereotypes and generalizations because we tend to fill in the unknown with our own perceptions based on past experiences. Therefore, everyone’s view is uniquely their own and might be based upon or influenced by misconceptions. Based upon my own past experiences in classroom settings, I know that when someone makes a comment which is not the majority view of the rest of the class, it oftentimes tends to create a lot of tension within the classroom and some people feel provoked to talk and defend their own views, while others become quiet and do not want to communicate their feelings with the rest of the class, even though they may have strong opinions, nonetheless. Furthermore, I believe that we are constantly asked to assume another’s voice, as students, trying to fit into an academic discourse community in which we might not feel as accustomed to. I think that in writing, however, some people feel more open to communicate their views than they would in an open discussion. Still, others might be more worried about their audience when writing than when the audience is a classroom of peers. Oftentimes, too, classroom discussion provides a springboard for writing.

3. Two questions I would like to answer in my paper include: When one assumes authority of a discourse community (in discussion or writing) in which they are not a part, does it create unnecessary tension, or is it a necessary part of the learning process? Also, how does one really develop his or her own voice, given that we are asked to assume the position of another so often in the learning process?

**Possible Sources include: Royster’s essay in Cross Talk, Bartholomae’s essay in Cross Talk, Journals printed from J-Stor (I have a few printed but will look into more as well), books concerning the topic of voice and developing voice in writing, and even possibly interviews with students or teachers about classroom situations. I know that I could interview students in my honors capstone course because we often have heated discussions that prompt us to assume a role in which we could not actually have (i.e. that of an African American experiencing racism, or a minority feeling stereotyped). I think another valuable source might be to talk to our instructors for that course and see their point of view, as they generally facilitate the discussion and then see how it relates to our writing since they are the only two who read what the entire class writes in their papers.

Brodkey's "On the Subject of Class and Gender in 'The Literacy Letters'"

I chose to read this essay, hoping that it would relate well to my topic. While it does look at the issue of voice, it really looks at it more from a teacher's perspective. Brodkey discusses the anger students must feel when they think a writing assignment has limitless possibilities, but the evaluation notes only value their limitations. While I could identify with this idea, it is not exactly what I had in mind for where I wanted to go with my research. Still, I guess this is an example of asking a writer to conform, and therefore limiting the voice they are trying to develop. According to Brodkey, "each institutionalized discourse privileges some people and not others by generating uneven and unequal subject positions as various as stereotypes and agents" (679). The idea that some people are given more privilege in discourse was interesting to explore, yet somewhat confusing. Still, I agree that some people are more privileged in their subject position, depending on the topic at hand.

Brodkey looked at several examples of classroom situations and student/teacher relationships. I didn't really get as much from those as I had hoped. I want to discuss how students develop their own voice, the problems they face, and what happens when they must assume a voice that is not their own, as many classroom situations will ask you to do. Brodkey explored the extent of classism, racism, and sexism that schools legitimate while asserting that they are trying to eliminate it.

One thing I think will relate to my topic, is the idea that the ideology that class, race, and gender differences are present in American society and the assertion that they are absent in the classroom is being challenged.

Overall, I hope to get a variety of sources which explore this idea so that I can synthesize them and come to my own conclusions based upon the mixture of arguments that I am able to find about how voice is formed, developed, and even possibly mimicked. I think that we have already read a few essays that might prove more helpful than this one that I chose to read. Particularly, I want to take another look at Bartholomae and Royster in this context.

Class Questions about my Inquiry Topic

When the general public considers my topic, issues they might think are important to discuss could include how people take into account other peoples’ voices when writing and even in discussion and more specifically, when trying to develop their own voice. I think the scholarly discourse community would probably have similar questions.

Some of the status quo assumptions might be that everyone has their own voice and they develop that voice in writing through practice and learning from others.

I think that texts about my subject expect people to realize that they create their own voice and to be more aware of the voice they develop through their experiences. They take different approaches to how voice is developed, but all get readers to really analyze their own voice in writing. I think writers about the subject of voice expect readers to at least consider their approach, even if they may not agree with the author’s assertions.

Inquiry Contract

Developing Your Own Voice

1. The issue I am thinking about researching is that of voice; specifically the implications and results of people oftentimes having to assume authority in situations in which they cannot or do not actually have that authority. What I want to know about this topic is how voice is developed and how it can be used in the most beneficial manner possible. The motivating factor for me to know more about this topic is that I think voice is the key to writing. It gives it style and personality, but when someone takes on a voice that is not theirs to assume, I believe many communication errors occur and that creates dissonance between the writer and audience. I want to look at the repercussions of doing just that. How does one feel when they must assume a voice in a certain discourse community that is not particularly their own, and how do the people of that community feel as a result? I also want to try to decide whether this is unnecessary, or a necessary part of the learning process.

2. I think that when someone assumes a role that is not theirs already, they end up coming to conclusions based upon stereotypes and generalizations because we tend to fill in the unknown with our own perceptions based on past experiences. Therefore, everyone’s view is uniquely their own and might be based upon or influenced by misconceptions. Based upon my own past experiences in classroom settings, I know that when someone makes a comment which is not the majority view of the rest of the class, it oftentimes tends to create a lot of tension within the classroom and some people feel provoked to talk and defend their own views, while others become quiet and do not want to communicate their feelings with the rest of the class, even though they may have strong opinions, nonetheless. Furthermore, I believe that we are constantly asked to assume another’s voice, as students, trying to fit into an academic discourse community in which we might not feel as accustomed to.

3. Two questions I would like to answer in my paper include: When one assumes authority of a discourse community in which they are not a part, does it create unnecessary tension, or is it a necessary part of the learning process? Also, how does one really develop their own voice, given that we are asked to assume the position of another so often in the learning process?

**Possible Sources include: Royster’s essay in Cross Talk, Journals printed from J-Stor, books concerning the topic of voice and developing voice in writing, and even possibly interviews with students or teachers about classroom situations.

Min-Zhan Lu's "Professing Multiculturalism"

In this essay, Lu looks at the way in which good writing had been classified in the past and poses a new approach which takes into account multiculturalism. The old criteria of determining the skill of a writer depended upon their knowledge of English, and the writer's experience in writing. Oftentimes the knowledge of English was tied to them being a native speaker and their experience was tied to them being educated. Lu explained that while Gertrude Stein's works were originally criticized because they did not follow those confines, she defended her cridentials and her work was published as a result of that. Theodore Dreiser, on the other hand, was met with criticism for his work when he took on an unconventional style and he backed down somewhat, likely because he was the son of a poor German immigrant and his formal education was sporadic, according to Lu. Students also face this issue in the classroom when their work is classified as poor and Lu emphasizes the idea that we need to take into account their cultural background before being so quick to classify. Each student brings different life experiences to their writing and therefore will have a uniquely different voice.
This point made me think of how artists are oftentimes criticized when they start a new style of painting, and it is not until years later, sometimes, that their innovative genius is recognized and acclaimed. I think the same is true for writers. Stein's writing was very innovative and somewhat abstract, but not uneducated in the least. The want is to jump to the conclusion that when a work does not follow the confines of the formal rules of English that it is due to inability to do so. Really, however, I am reminded of the idea that a writer has to know all the rules before they can break them effectively. Stein, for instance, knew all the rules and felt confident in stepping away from them. When someone is from another culture, it does not mean that they do not know the rules of our language.
Futhermore, I remember once reading about a student who was having trouble in English because he never wrote in the form that was expected of him as a student of English: outline of ideas, thesis etc. Instead, he would write lofty ideas that never clearly spelled out a thesis or conclusion. Actually, this was because he was from a high context culture where circular logic is used as opposed to our linear model. In the case of his cultural background, it would be rude and undermine the intelligence of the reader to tell them flat out what the point was. Instead, he gave enough clues such that one might come to their own conclusions. The problem was not that he did not understand English, but simply that he came from a different cultural background and that is exactly the problem Lu asserts needs to be addressed.

Inquiry Project

1. The issue I am thinking about researching is that of voice, specifically the implications and results of people oftentimes having to assume authority in situations in which they cannot or do not actually have that authority. For example, in a classroom situation when a white student is asked how a black person might feel in a situation in which they are being discriminated against, they cannot actually know how it feels, but have to assume that authority and come to their own conclusions. Therefore, I want to look at the repercussions of doing just that. How does the student feel when they assume the authority of someone in that community, and how do people who are actually in that community feel. Does this create unnecessary dissonance, or is it a necessary part of the learning process?

2. My personal connection to this topic is that I have been asked to assume this particular role in a classroom situation and I didn’t know how to react. Also, I have seen other students with the same confusion because they do not want to offend anyone or articulate anything the wrong way. In my own experience it simply created tension in the classroom.

3. I already started to talk about my own opinions, but I do think it can be a very useful and necessary part of learning, but it might make people within the community feel upset at what the people outside of it are saying because they can’t really understand.

4. My knowledge of this topic comes from practical experience. So far I have mentioned classroom situations, but I also notice in workplace situations the same thing happens. Specifically, at the insurance company where I am interning, I oftentimes lead the client to believe that I have more authority about a topic that I actually have because I do not want to come off as uninformed. Also, in literature, sometimes white authors will create characters, for example, who are slaves, or Jewish, or really anything that the author themselves are not.

6. In one of the essays that we read for class, the researcher said that when she hears people who are not of her race try to assume what it is like for her, she oftentimes ends up being quiet and holding her opinions to herself, but actually feeling very offended. From a communication standpoint, however, researchers might look at why people outside of the community feel and why they communicate in the way in which they do.

7. Research could include interviewing students, professors, etc…possibly even taking a survey of students.

Creating a "Scene" as Royster does

In my blog for Royster's essay, I mentioned one experience in a class. For this "Scene," I was reminded of another experience from that class in which I witnessed a "cross-boundary exchange." Our professor had us fill out surveys in which you circle a number corresponding to either end of the scale for specific races. For example, one of the opposite pairs was "rising in society, or declining in society" and another pair was "athletic, or intellectual." We filled out this survey according to what we thought of Whites, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Afterwards, we went through the results that most of the class had in common and discussed why we might have those perceptions.

Our professor, who is African American, asked one person in class what she put for the question of “athletic versus intellectual” on the survey. She, like most others, put athletic. Our professor then asked “why can’t a black person be intellectual?” This completely put the girl in a corner and created much dissonance in the classroom. This was a “cross-boundary exchange” because the girl, who was white, was trying to make inferences about the race to which her professor belonged. She was trying to belong in a discourse community without being able to have all of the holes of knowledge filled in, since she was not actually a member of the race being talked about.

Everyone in the class knew exactly what stereotype our professor was trying to dispel, but the fact of the matter is that “athletic vs. intellectual” is a leading topic because, truly, those are not opposites. Black can be both and the fact that our professor was asking why we did not believe that created much tension in the class. It was not that we did not believe that, but rather that it was not a choice on the survey. The effect of this lecture and those leading questions were not beneficial to the class because it pushed us into a corner of saying things that we did not necessarily believe, but had to answer for the sake of completing the assignment. While I can see how some activities like this could lead to a better learning environment, I believe this simply discouraged many people in the class from speaking up with their own voice in the future, for fear of being pushed into saying something they do not believe.

Royster

Jacqueline Jones Royster's "When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own" looks at the problem of hearing others voice views which pertain to a category to which you belong and how to cope with the feelings that is brings about. She explains that she is often compelled to listen as others claim authority on a topic that concerns her, as an African American. The others are assuming the authority, which many of the researchers we have read thus far assert is necessary in order to become a part of an academic discourse community. Still, as Royster listens, she explains that she gets impatient because the outsiders do not really understand what they are talking about. I think this is a problem that works on many levels, with outsiders claiming a subjective position, but because they are not an insider, they cannot completely understand that position.
In one of my other classes, we were talking about the issue of racism in American and watched a clip where a white man and a black man did a series of errands in St. Louis, including car shopping, shopping in a music store, and trying to get their keys out of their locked car. The black man was treated completely differently than the white man. Our professor, who himself is black, posed the question to a girl in the class who is white, as to whether or not she believed the was the salespeople treated the black man was on purpose, or subcontious. When the girl said she believed it was subcontious, our professor sounded shocked and retorted "really, you believe that?" This created tension in the classroom, but after reading Royster's essay, I think the reason this happened was in part because our professor, like Royster, was listening to an outsider try to take an authority position on an argument in which they had no real experience or complete understanding. Royster asserted that "when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted" (613). Our professor went further, explaining instances that he had experienced in which he felt discriminated, othered, or simply profiled. He clearly felt a need to "right" this outsider's perspective, or at least fill in the gaps in understanding. According to Royster, the challenge is to teach and speak with the Others with the intent of understanding their interpretation and that is just that - their interpretation.
Royster also looked further at the idea of "voice" and made the claim that all of her voices are "very much authentic voices, even when it's difficult for others to imagine a person like me having the capacity to do that" (619). Everyone enters discourse communities with their own subjective views and their voice might surprise you, but is nonetheless, their voice. Furthermore, Royster got at the idea that we need to acknowledge the voices of others and really bridge those gaps with others. We should not talk for, about, or around the boundaries, but rather embrace them. I think Royster was trying to assert that we need to really listen to others when they are professing their interpretations, so that your reaction might be better formed. Royster concluded her essay with the idea that "voicing at its best is not just well-spoken but also well-heard" (622). I agree with that statement, and have learned in many communications classes the power of listening, and that listening is even more important in communication than speaking. If you are not listening, but rather just waiting to talk, you will get nowhere and a true, productive discourse cannot take place.
Overall, the ideas that Royster was getting at were easy for me to relate to my experiences and I think she makes a good point that we need to bridge the gaps between those who are simply assuming a role of authority within a discourse community and those who actually have some claim to that role in a particular discourse community.

Patricia Bizzell

Patricia Bizzell's essay, "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing" looks at the "the writing problem" from two different standpoints: that of inner-directed theorists (such as Flower and Hayes), and that of outer-directed theorists. Inner-directed theorists argue that the structures of thought and language can be taught, while outter-directed theorists believe that they cannot. They argue that thinking and the use of language are never completely separate from their social context. Bizzell affirms that in order to really get the whole picture, we have to look at both inner and outer-directed theories.

Bizzell points out that Flower and Hayes have been refining their process model of composing. According to them, "translating" refers to putting ideas into visible language and Bizzell thinks it is the emptiest box in their model. On the other hand, the "planning" box is the fullest because it is how the writer gets at the solution to the writing problem. Bizzell points out that the social context due to the dialectical relationship between thought and language is missing from their argument. They do not address the role of knowledge in the writing process. I think he is getting at the idea that Flower and Hayes overlooked the outer-directed approach to writing and therefore do not have the whole problem addressed. I found this particularly interesting because while I was reading Flower and Hayes, I easily related it to my writing process and could identify what they were getting at (even though I had never put it into quite those terms before). When reading Bizzell's argument, however, I agreed that Flower and Hayes did probably overlook some things that go into the writing process. I have found this with many of the authors we have read so far. I can relate to what they are saying, but then when it is refuted, I can also see that point, which only makes the "writing problem" seem that much more complex to me.

Bizzell affirms that no scientific research can have the type of authoritative certainty that inner-directed theorists are looking for. Bizzell goes on to address the idea of the "hidden curriculum" which she describes as initiating students into a world view that addresses daily classroom tasks without actually being examined by the teacher or students. By calling what is being taught, "universal," the hidden curriculum is even further hidden since we are ignoring any historical circumstance. Finally, Bizzell reaffirms the idea that there is no way to stay out of all discourse communities and judge them. We need to look not only at the discourse, but also the community.

I think this is an interesting argument and it seems as though Bizzell was able to really look at the problem of writing on a holistic level. She looks at different approaches, anticipates problems, and discusses how to get a better idea of the whole problem. It seems as if Bizzell is doing exactly what some of the earlier readings would use to classify her writing as "expert" rather than "basic." She presents a complex idea and synthesis of others' ideas, and I'm not sure if it is right to agree with what she was saying as well as what other theorists have asserted because some ideas seem inherently contradictory, but I see validity in both Bizzell's and Flower and Hayes ideas.

Flower and Hayes

In their essay, "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing," Linda Flower and John R. Hayes explore the question of what guides the decisions writers make while writing. The essay enhances four main points. First, the writing process is best understood as a set of thinking processes that writers develop while composing. Second, these thinking processes have a hierarchical organization wherein any process may be embedded within another. Third, the act of composing is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer's own network of goals. Fourth, writers create their own goals in two main ways: by generating both high-level goals and supporting sub-goals that encompass the writer's sense of purpose while writing, and even sometimes by changing goals or establishing new goals based on what the writer has realized while writing.
Flower and Hayes discuss the stage process model, of which an example would be the pre-write/write/re-write model. They also make the assertion that a model is a metaphor for a process because it is a way to describe something. Within the model, or process, are the three units including the task environment which includes everything outside the writer's skin, the writer's long term memory which houses stored knowledge, and the writing process which includes planning, translating, and reviewing. These principles are better laid out in the model on page 278 of Cross Talk in Composition, and it is easier to see how they all correlate to one another.
According to Flower and Hayes, during the planning process, writers develop and internal representation of the knowledge that they will use for writing. Then, the logic that keeps the writer going comes from the goals which writers create while composing. Oftentimes, writers will revise major goals due to what they learned through writing. They start with a high goal and then develop sub-goals and even regenerate those goals at times, which is a powerful creative process, as states Flower and Hayes. Basically, the writer uses a goal to generate ideas, then consolidates those ideas, uses them to regenerate new goals, and the learning process is in full swing. By setting new goals, the creative learning process is really developed.
To me, these ideas seem very lofty, but seem to build upon things I have already learned, or use in my writing. I constantly come up with new writing goals as I write and develop my thoughts more clearly. It is for that reason that I constantly find myself revising my writing - I can almost always restructure an idea or devise a completely new idea based on something I have explored while writing. I think that oftentimes my best arguments are not the first things I come up with, or even set up in the first draft. The "reviewing" step that Flower and Hayes explain to encompass evaluating and revising is probably where I spend the most of my writing time. As much as I try to plan and organize my thoughts and develop a thesis that shows my aim or goal in writing, I always find it necessary to go back and redevelop, or revise my thoughts into a better argument.

Bartholomae

"Inventing the University" by David Bartholomae argues that students must learn to speak the language that the University requires of them in order to succeed. Therefore, they try to become a part of that specialized discourse. In order to do that, they mimick its language while trying to mesh that language with their own ideas. Bartholomae explains that this is a trying task for "basic writers" because they have difficulty taking on that voice and often end up giving advice rather than coming to academic conclusions.
The differentiating line is, according to Linda Flower, that expert writers can anticipate the readers response and restructure their argument based on that knowledge. In order to anticipage the response, writers must, according to Bartholomae, acknowledge any assumptions and biases on the part of the reader. When the writer successfully manipulates their audience, they are above the basic writer category and entering into the expertise. Bartholomae goes on to point out that all writers need to think of themselves as 'insiders' into the specialized discourse community, and having the power to speak.
Basic writers face the obstacle of writing for the teacher, and they end up imitating what they have read, without really coming to their own conclusions about it. One way to help basic writers is to help them determine the conventions of the specific discourse community such that they might understand them and enter into that discourse community, as expert writers do. Bartholomae goes on to look at specific essays written by students and comes to the conclusion that the more advanced writers, indeed, claim an 'inside' position of privilege by rejecting the common language of the 'outsiders.' Just under those writers are those who find authority by simply mimicking the way academic prose. Bartholomae concludes that students may need to mimick the academic discourse before they can really enter into that discourse community and develop their own voice.
I agree with Bartholomae that it takes time for writers to really develop into experienced writers. As I read this essay I was thinking about my own writing techniques and questioning whether or not I really assume the position of privilege within the specific discourse community. In this instance, it feels more like simply mimicking that position, as I am writing basically a summary of Bartholomae's ideas, but then as I am coming to my own conclusions about his writing, I feel more like I am taking a position inside the community. I have experienced through my own writing that I have to first learn the style before I can really make it my own. That is true not only when trying to develop my voice in writing for the newspaper, but then also when I began writing in my creative non-fiction class last year too. With each new form of writing, I first find myself mimicking style, but then really developing my own style once I get used to it. I think the same is true for the use of templates that we discussed in the beginning of the semester in "They Say, I Say." At first, it is beneficial for writers to mimick another's style, but once they are comfortable enough, the templates become limiting and they can develop their own arguments without their aid.

Lunsford and Shaughnessy Essays

Andrea A. Lunsford's "Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer" argues that basic writers do not yet have the cognitive level of experienced writers, and that is the reason they cannot perform analysis and synthesis effectively. They find difficulties in trying to infer and form their own opinions based on what was read. Lunsford then went on to explain that researchers including Piaget and Vygotsky argue that the development of a higher cognitive level comes from first doing, then doing consciously, and finally formally conceptualizing. According to Lunsford, basic writing classes should revolve around small workshop groups that keep every member actively involved. Also, the teacher should come up with assignments and drills that have the students continually practicing. Furthermore, since the group is working together, they will be involved in what Lunsford calls inferential problem-solving as opposed to simply doing a drill, or strict memorization. Lunsford then goes into the idea of sentence-combining exercises to help basic writers go from imitating other modes/ideas in writing, and transition into generating their own original ideas and synthesis of the material.
Mina P. Shaughnessy's "Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing" offers four basic stages that teachers go through as they develop their craft. The first stage, Guarding the Tower, explains that the new teacher is focused on following the rules and protecting the academy (of learners) from those who don't belong. I take that to mean that the teacher is focused on those who do belong to the academy of learners, but the problem is that many of the beginning writers might not. Then, the teacher enters the second stage, Converting the Natives, when they realize that the class has some students that might catch up if they have the right instruction. Next, the teacher enters the third stage, Sounding the Depths, where they observe if their students are improving upon their writing, and look at themselves as a writer as well as a teacher. The final stage, Diving In, is when the teacher decided to remediate himself and become a student of new disciplines and of his students, in an attempt to deduce the things they are struggling with as well as the things at which they excel, according to Shaughness. It is finally deciding to help them learn to write well and enter the community of the educable.
These two essays were difficult for me to relate to because they did not really correlate to my career choice since I am not going into teaching. However, when I tried to apply the Lunsford essay to my tutoring experience, I felt like it had more merit. My tutee has, on both papers that we have looked at, tried to summarize what he has read and then adds his own opinion very minimally at the end of the paper. I felt like this is waht Lunsford was getting at when she said that beginning writers have difficulty with synthesis and really applying what they have read. That is something I hope to work on with him, and this essay helped me to recognize that it is a basic problem that is very common for beginning writers. I hope that much of the discussion we have generated can help him bridge the gap and really come up with his own reaction to the peice he is synthesizing. Also, the Shaughnessy essay really reinforced the role that I must take as a tutor in helping my tutee to write well. He already has strong opinions, does the work, and seems to be a serious student. Now he just needs to work on making those verbal discussions translate into his synthesis, such that it is not simply a summary. I think Shaughnessy would refer to this as the tutor "diving in."

Bitch Magazine

Looking at Bitch magazine helped put a practical application to what felt like a rather abstract topic for me. In reality, however, you would have to consider not only the people you are writing specifically for, but you also have to consider the types of reactions you will likely invoke in the readers as they read your argument. The writers of Bitch would not want to write anything against a magazine to which their readers might subscribe because that would invoke a feeling of mistrust and disagreement among the readers. Therefore, it is evident that the writers do not expect their readers to be reading such magazines and would not be so put off by their remarks. On the contrary, they might find themselves in agreement and identifying with the points. The sarcasm in this magazine particularly was very to the point and the readers could not help but laugh. It was clear that Bitch magazine does not care what their competitors think of them. They want their point read and they are making their view known. Even a name like Bitch invokes a particular response in the reader and also signals that it might not be for everyone.

Ede and Lunsford

Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford’s essay “The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy” addresses many weaknesses in other theories concerning the role of the audience in writing. Ede and Lunsford argue that arguments on both sides oversimplify the issue. They assert that “making meaning through written discourse” is very complex (78). The “audience addressed” approach means that the writer takes into account the audience’s attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. For this approach, the audience is very real. Using this approach, however, Ede and Lunsford argue that theorists Mitchell and Taylor overemphasize and oversimplify the elements they include in their model for writing: writer, written product, audience, and response. In doing so, they do not give enough weight to the relationship between style and substance. Writing is more than just acting upon a receiver, but rather that it is a “means of making meaning for the writer and the reader” (82).

That said, Ede and Lunsford also addressed the idea of “audience invoked” which views the audience to be a fiction that the writer creates. Ong, who we have previously studied, argued that the writer has to construct the audience in their imagination and likewise, the audience must fictionalize itself. Ede and Lunsford, however, contest that the constraints on the writer and the role of the reader are much more complex than Ong would lead you to believe and that Ong does not always recognize the constraints that the audience places on the writer. There are instances in which the writer must think about their actual readers, and both analyze and invent an audience, which would be a mix between the two approaches.

Ede and Lunsford created a model that addresses the many roles of the audience and also looks at the fact that they may be either addressed or invoked. The addressed audience exists outside of the text, but the roles of the addressed audience may be invoked through the text. Ede and Lunsford stress the integrated and interdependent role of both reading and writing. Therefore, the audience must balance the creativity of the writer with that of the reader.

Looking back at Ong’s study, I believe that Ede and Lunsford did point out some important flaws, or areas that Ong overlooked. In reality, it does seem more like a give and take relationship. I know that when I was learning to write, I was always taught the importance of keeping in mind the audience, but also to stay focused on the argument that I was trying to make. I think that if you focus too much on the audience, your argument becomes weaker, but on the same note, if you focus too much on your own argument without taking into account both the fictionalized and addressed audience, your argument could suffer. Therefore, a balance of both is necessary in order to have a truly successful argument.

Ong's Essay

Walter J. Ong’s essay “The Writer’s Audience is Always Fiction” examines the relationship of the audience to the writer, professing that because the audience is not in front of the writer, they are forced to imagine or make them up. Ong explains that writing for your fictionalized audience is stems from reading you have done by authors who have fictionalized their audience before you. The author can cast the audience in different types of roles, according to Ong. For instance, the Hemingway “you –and-me relationship” invoke great empathy in the reader based on shared experience, as if the reader had been through it with the writer, which was very different from the approach many writers before him had taken. Ong explains that even Homer established a fictional world with “once upon a time” language. Chaucer frames his stories and then made it seem real by placing himself, the narrator, in the tales. Ong goes so far as to assert that even letter writers are forced to fictionalize their audience because no one is physically there for you to address orally. Diary writers, too, do so because we do not normally talk to ourselves, and they must pretend they are not there in order to write to themselves. Thus, Ong argues that each writer must create a fictionalized audience when writing.

I think that when I was learning to write, I did fictionalize my audience, and still do, but without really thinking about it. Everything I write is done so for a certain intended reader that is not actually there. In Ong’s example of the student being instructed to write on the subject of “How I spent my summer vacation,” I found it very identifiable because I would write completely different essays for a different fictionalized audience. In fact, I have done exercises in writing classes where we wrote the same paper for different audiences and the result was completely different.

While Ong’s essay was much different from some of the other approaches we have studied, I believe that Ong makes a valid point that the audience is crucial to consider, and fictionalize, as the writer. It reminded me of Perl’s argument regarding the differences between skilled and unskilled writers. Perl pointed out that unskilled readers often take the readers understanding for granted. On the same note, Ong emphasizes that you must, as a writer, take into account your fictionalized audience. That is, the audience for whom you are writing. While Perl came to the conclusion that unskilled writers did not know how to effectively edit their work and attributed that to their lack of attention to their intended audience, Ong would likely argue that the fictionalized audience of the writer is based upon writings they have read in the past and the fictionalized audience of writers in the past. Therefore, I would conjecture that the more one reads, the better equipped they are to understand their fictionalized audience.

Breuch's essay "Post-Process Pedagogy"

Lee-Ann Breuch’s essay, “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’” explores the idea that process is not an accurate description of writing. It is not a matter of pre-writing, writing, and rewriting which can be easily taught. Rather, writing cannot be taught because it is “situated, interpretive, and interdeterminate” and because of that, it cannot be taught because nothing exists to teach. One scholar, Kent, distinguishes other knowledge like that of grammar rules which can be taught from the act of writing which cannot be taught. While the implications of writing as a process are that writing can be learned and perfected, in reality, as Breuch, Kent, and other scholars argue, writing cannot be perfected. In accordance with Post-Process theory, there are several assumptions about writing. Specifically, the theory assumes that writing is public, interpretive, and situated. Writing is public because there is an intended audience for everything you write and writers try to communicate their argument to that specific audience. Writing is interpretive because the production of discourse is just as interpretive as the reception. It is even suggested that every interpretation is based on previous interpretations. Finally, writing is situated because it must correspond to specific contexts that naturally vary. Some suggest that teachers should change how and what they teach based on the situation in the classroom, and they do not have to follow any one set blueprint. Breuch argues that you should not take Post-Process theory at face value, simply as a critique of process, but rather that it also implies the acceptance of anti-foundationalist perspective and moving toward language-in-use in order to reexamine the foundations from which teachers teach and how they communicate towards students.

I do agree that it is important to discuss ideas and listen to students open-mindedly, and that the argument does seem valid for students not to have to adhere to a strict theory that writing is a process which can be learned. I still cannot get past the fact that I keep thinking about how much the process of writing has helped me learn to become a better writer. It is true that I am not a perfect writer, but I do not think perfection of the skill is necessarily the goal of writing. This theory presents several good implications of writing with which I do agree, but I still keep thinking about the fact that the actual process of writing is very important, as Murray and Emig would assert. Murray, Emig, and Breuch are student centered in their arguments, focusing on what the student needs, but in very different ways. While Murray and Emig would agree that the process of writing is most important, Breuch would contest that writing is not something that straight-foreword. Emig stresses feedback and the act of writing being inclusive and creative, whereas Murray says that prewriting is the creative process, and takes a much less cognitive approach. Breuch, on the other hand, seems to have a less tangible thought about writing, saying that it is very-much so interpretive and should be molded to the situation at hand, and that it really cannot be taught. Therefore, it is not right for teachers to profess that there is one right or wrong way to write and that the process must be followed.

Based on my writing experiences, I do think that the principles upon which we write can be taught. By that I mean that we can be taught the process of writing, and the rules that so-called “good writers” follow. However, once we, as students of writing, know those rules and processes, it is alright to stray away from them and develop our own voice as a writer. Process is, in my mind, the key to writing. When writers skip the prewriting or rewriting step, their writing is not nearly as concise as when they follow through with the whole process from beginning to end. While I could definitely agree with some of the points Breuch makes about writing, I ultimately think that writing is a process which can be learned but not perfected.

Perl and Sommers

Sondra Perl’s essay “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers” examines a study which explored how unskilled writers compose by assigning them to write both in both an extensive, objective manner as well as a reflexive, reflective manner. In one specific case, outlined in the essay, Tony (the unskilled writer) spent more time prewriting and writing in the extensive mode but used fewer words. The reflexive mode took him 20 minutes longer, but he was able to come up with 194 more words. Therefore, he had more fluency in the reflexive mode. In the extensive mode, Tony slowed down and corrected his words and sentences several times because he was hooked on the idea that it had to be right which inevitably slowed down the flow of his writing. Furthermore, when the idea of prewriting was established as a guideline and the unskilled writers had to plan, it was easier for them to articulate the actual writing process because they had a sense of where their writing was going.

In Nancy Sommers’s essay “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” Sommers took a sample of twenty college freshmen as well as twenty experienced adults and compared their revision strategies. She found four different levels of changes: word, phrase, sentence, and theme. The students revised in order to “clean up speech” according to Sommers. Experienced writers, however, would rewrite and focus on language changes with the aim of making the argument stronger, identifying and getting rid of dissonance, and finding the shape of their argument. Experienced writers made changes on all levels, but students did not frequently use reordering or addition in their revision process, and lacked a holistic perspective in relation to their work.

In my own experiences with trying to help one of my friends form an argument for a paper, I realized that her main problem is that she cannot get through a sentence without rewording it three times. I tried to encourage her to write it out and get her ideas on paper and then revise, but she always reverts back to erasing every other word she writes and it ends up taking her much longer. This reminded me of Perl’s findings that “unskilled writers” get hooked on the idea that their writing has to be perfect. Sommers, too, explained how skilled writers will revise several times in order to really perfect their argument after completing their work. I know that when I write I try to keep myself from getting hung up on the sentence level errors or inconsistencies before I finish my argument. I also always plan out my argument so that it will be easier not only to write, but also to revise and find any inconsistencies in my argument.

I think the works of Perl and Sommers have a lot to do with Murray’s essay “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product” because just as Perl examines how unskilled writers compose, so too does Sommers test the difference in styles of unskilled and skilled writers. Murray urges teachers to allow the students to engage in the process of writing in order to learn. He clarifies that to be the process of prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Sommers focuses more in-depth on how rewriting styles differ between unskilled and skilled writers, but I believe something all three writers have in common is an attention to the different styles of different writers as well as how they might identify weaknesses.

Cross Talk in Comp Theory Response Journal

Cross-Talk in Comp Theory is intended to be used by teachers as an overview of composition studies. According to the editor, Victor Villanueva, the readings in the book are presented such that you can come to your own conclusions by looking at different viewpoints. The idea is to establish a dialectic through these many readings. The first two readings assigned did just that. Donald M. Murray’s essay “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product” argues that writing is about the process more so than anything else. He says there are three main stages in writing: prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Murray presents the idea that when students spend their time working through this process, they learn a lot more about themselves as a writer because “you don’t learn a process by talking about it.” Janet Emig, in her essay, “Writing as a Mode of Learning” makes note of the higher cognitive functions that develop through writing including analysis and synthesis. She argues that talking and writing are productive functions, but is clear about the differences between the two. While talking is valuable to the prewriting process, writing is not classified as talk recorded – there is no tangible audience, and it is a considerably slower, more defined process.

In my own experiences of being taught to write, I learned to go through the process of writing in steps. We would start by researching, then write out a draft, and then finally revise it several times until the argument was clear and well supported. When I was learning to write, my biggest shortcoming was in researching because I would often want to just jump straight to writing the paper and not take enough time to really analyze my argument as well as the arguments against it. I agree that writing is very much so a process which you learn through experience and past errors. I also believe that higher cognitive functions do develop through this process of writing because you must analyze not only your argument, but the arguments of others in order to synthesize all of the information together into your paper on any given topic. I was always taught the importance of supporting your argument when writing, which I now understand to be crucial to the process.

I can easily see how the instruction of writing has changed over time, in accordance with the historical time period and what was happening in the world. According to Berlin’s “A Short History of Writing Instruction,” the view of teaching writing as a cognitive process or as an expressionist process has evolved over the years. Now, however, I believe that as Cross-Talk asserts, while writing is a cognitive process, it also engages both sides of the brain. Therefore, it is an expressionistic process using cognitive functions. Cross-Talk and Berlin both reference Bruner’s work arguing that writing is a cognitive process. I agree that writing is a crucial cognitive process which forces students to think creatively and develop their own process and means of producing a final product.

The History of Writing Instruction 1960-1975

During these years, the principles upon which writing should be taught were changing in accordance with the changing times. Selective service deferment for people attending college and graduate school was a driving force encouraging many to attend college. When the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, many people felt that public schools should be subject-centered and not student-centered because they felt like the US needed to compete with other nations in technological advancements and the way to do this was through a highly educated population. By 1964, the National Defense Education Act expanded to improve instruction of literature, language, and composition.

Jerome Burner recommended organizing a sequenced curriculum, which proved highly influential. He thought of learning as a cognitive process in relation to the structure of the subject being studied. He put great emphasis on the role of discovery in learning, according to Berlin, and pushed for an inductive approach to learning in which the student figures out the structure of the subject being studied. He thought student research led to more influential learning by students. Therefore, it was the process of writing from which students learned best, rather than from studying the works of someone else. Only after the students arrived at their own sense of knowledge, argued Burner, learning to compose is possible.

Then, in 1971, Janet Emig published a work, which provided research evidence to support the cognitive approach to composing. Later, in 1975, James Britton also supporter the cognitive standpoint when he published results of research conducted in England. James Moffett, in 1968, came up with a series of activities to directly correlate with the four developmental stages of interior dialogue, conversation, correspondence, and public narrative.

In 1966, at the Dartmouth Conference, the British explained their model of instruction, which focused more on personal and linguistic growth, opposed to the demands of the discipline of English. The process at hand was much more important than the content of the curriculum according to the British standpoint. As a result of the conference, US teachers put more emphasis on the expressive model of writing. Political activism of this time period, too, encouraged this standpoint. This expressionist process was taught in classes resistant to dominant political formations. The cognitive process, then, avoided political conflicts or looked at them as rational problems. Although there are differing opinions on how to approach the instruction of English, most agree that language is not simply reflective of “material and social realities” according to Berlin. Rather it is an inclusive process for both the writer, reader, and all others involved.

“They Say, I Say” Response Journal 2

Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, in their book They Say, I Say, assert that the best way to formulate an argument is to start with the opposing argument and then state your own viewpoint on the subject. First, according to the authors, a good writer should clearly address their thesis and also the larger issue at hand. I agree with this point because it is important for a reader to understand why your point needs to be made. If that is not made clear at first, the reader has nothing to keep them engaged in your writing. They go on to say that anticipating the opposite argument by putting yourself in their shoes will help you to develop a stronger, more compelling argument. Furthermore, a good writer will set up quotations from other sources and then explain why they agree or disagree with the point made from the quotation. It is also important to address the “so what” aspect, according to the authors, so the reader has a good grasp of the importance of your writing. (They also explored the idea that you must reiterate ideas in different words, as I just have with the idea of the “larger issue” that I addressed twice).

In my own experiences of learning to write, I have been taught many of these same principles, which is why I agree with what Graff and Birkenstein are trying to get across through their book. After reading this book I have realized that I now do many of these things without even consciously thinking about it. In my comp III class, however, we wrote many argumentative papers with exactly this approach and we even read Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which Graff and Birkenstein reference. He sets up such a strong argument by addressing every criticism that by the end of the letter, it is very difficult to not feel compelled to take King’s side. I believe, from practice, that by stating the argument of the opposition, your argument does stand a lot stronger than if you were simply to state your side of the story.

This book nicely compliments the other articles we have read because it addresses another type of learning, which Bruffee would refer to as internalized thought re-externalized. Bruffee addressed how students will learn more effectively in a group setting, and by not only conversing, but also conversing about writing and the writing process. Graff and Birkenstein focused on the writing process and formulating a good argument. The revision process, then, will be even more effective because the argument in the paper will already be well supported. Overall, I think Graff and Birkenstein’s book is a useful tool for our class because it will help me to help the 105 students such that we can have a more effective conversation and dialogue about their argument.

Exercise 2 - Templates

Response Journal Exercise 2 “They Say, I Say”

Authors Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, in their book They Say, I Say argue that templates are beneficial for writers, especially those developing their craft because it forces them to delve deeper into any subject about which they are writing. Specifically, they say that templates allow you to do more than make well-supported claims; they map those claims relative to the claims of others as well (XII). Although some people believe that templates limit the creativity of the writer, Graff and Birkenstein insist that their templates help students to carry their writing further by prompting them to make moves the would not otherwise make or even think to make (XIII). By following the “they say/I say” format, writers first listen to others’ views and then develop their own arguments. The authors believe that this model is beneficial to writers in order to develop a well-supported argument.

I agree. In my opinion, templates do well to serve as a springboard for developing your own thoughts and arguments. For instance, in my creative non-fiction writing class last semester, we often followed templates of other authors in order to begin writing our own pieces. It helped me to better understand how to develop a good story because it was a type of writing with which I had very little experience. After I was comfortable with the template, I was able to branch off and come up with my own opening for stories. Some might argue that in following another author’s format, your own voice does not come across well. Yet I would argue that in order to develop your own voice it is important to have a good command of the type of writing you are doing. Overall, then, I believe templates help students develop their own arguments and thoughts – an important point to make given that many people do not see the need for templates in writing