In this piece by Linda Flower and John R Hayes, the section "goals, topic, and text" resonate best for me. Logically, it makes sense to me what they have to say about how writers plan and organize what they are going to write, but then change mid-writing because of extenuating circumstances such as their own knowledge of a topic. Flower and Hayes write that the writer's representation of their goals, their knowledge of the topic, and the current text "are all actively cometing for the writer's atention. Each wants to govern the choices and decisions made next."
When analyzing how writers write, this theory I believe is key to understand. Once this process is understood, teaching how to overcome these competing ideas will be more clear.
What is interesting about Flower and Hayes' discussion are the two types of wrtiers they talk about. Those who understand and are able to work through these ideas and "use writing for discovery" and those who "seem simply to free associate on paper or to be obsessed with perfecting the current text". Flower and Hayes assert that for this kind of writer the problem is not that knowledge or text have interfered, but that "the writer's own goals and/or images of the composing process put these strategies in control". Ultimately what all of this goes to explore is their "cognitive process theory" - one that I agree with. The process of writing is never-ending, Flower and Hayes assert. This process is also ever-changing and can not be nailed down to a specific a, b, c process. Goals change, knowledge interferes, and understanding of text formulates, reformulates and changes.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked
In their quest to prove the relationship between reading and writing and to emphasize the "creative, dynamic duality" of the two, Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford rely on the writings and theories of other scholars on the topic of audience. Specifically, their piece "Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy" questions those who favor emphasizing "the concrete reality of the writer's audience" and "share the assumption that knowledge of this audience's attitidues, beliefs, and expectations is not only possible but essential" (known as Audience Addressed) as well as those who favor Audience Invoked. This theory Ede and Lunsfort say refers those who "stress that the audience of a writen discourse is a construction of the writer, a "created fiction"(quoted from Long, p. 225)."
Mitchell and Taylor are two Audience Addressed theorists who Ede and Lunsford both agree and disagree with. They do not like Mitchell and Taylor's argument because they believe Mitchell and Taylor put too much emphasis on the role of the audience than on the writer. While acknowledging Mitchell and Taylor's emphasis on the creative role of readers, Ede and Lunsford say they still fail to recognize the "equally essential role writers play throughout the composing process."
Ede and Lunsford address Ong's audience invoked approach as well. According to Ede and Lunsford, "teachers of writing may err if they uncritically accept Ong's statement that "waht has been said about fictional narrative applies ceteris paribus to all writing." (quoted from p. 17)." I agree with Ede and Lunsford in their argument that writers must invite their audience to be seen as the writer sees them. They write, "Writers who wish to be read must often adapt their discourse to meet the needs and expectations of an addressed audience." However, writers may also be required to respond to comments and suggestions from their audience, they say. Finding a balance between the invoked audience and the addressed audience is most important for Ede and Lunsford, and makes most sense to me as well.
Mitchell and Taylor are two Audience Addressed theorists who Ede and Lunsford both agree and disagree with. They do not like Mitchell and Taylor's argument because they believe Mitchell and Taylor put too much emphasis on the role of the audience than on the writer. While acknowledging Mitchell and Taylor's emphasis on the creative role of readers, Ede and Lunsford say they still fail to recognize the "equally essential role writers play throughout the composing process."
Ede and Lunsford address Ong's audience invoked approach as well. According to Ede and Lunsford, "teachers of writing may err if they uncritically accept Ong's statement that "waht has been said about fictional narrative applies ceteris paribus to all writing." (quoted from p. 17)." I agree with Ede and Lunsford in their argument that writers must invite their audience to be seen as the writer sees them. They write, "Writers who wish to be read must often adapt their discourse to meet the needs and expectations of an addressed audience." However, writers may also be required to respond to comments and suggestions from their audience, they say. Finding a balance between the invoked audience and the addressed audience is most important for Ede and Lunsford, and makes most sense to me as well.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Breuch and Post-Process Pedagogy - What does that mean?
In Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch’s article Post-Process “Pedagogy”: A Philosophical Exercise, the author presents several scholars’ disagreement with the process theory for teaching writing. These “post-process” scholars, “suggest that the process paradigm has reduced the writing act to a series of codified phases that can be taught” she writes. For Breuch, post-process theory has little, if anything, to do with process. From the other readings we have done, I believe process is effective for writing. The prewriting, writing and rewriting stages that make up the process give writers a guide and sense for how to write effectively. For teachers, it helps them to teach students how to write and focuses much of the composition instruction on what is being said instead of how it is being said.
Frankly, I think that if Breuch paid more attention to the writing process, I may have understood her argument better. I am at this point very unclear about what the post-process theory actually means or implies for writing and writing instruction. Based on the work of Kent, Breuch describes assumptions post-process theory brings about writing, that it is public, interpretive and situated. The idea that writing is public is one I agree with. “The assumption that writing is public grows out of the post-process perspective that meaning making is a product of our communicative interaction with others rather than a product of an individual,” she writes. I understand this to mean that writing comes from conversation with others, not just from oneself. The theory also suggests writing is interpretive, suggesting meaning is not stable, an idea I also agree with. The suggestion that writing is situated, is one I do not understand, so therefore do not disagree or agree with.
I feel Breuch is clearer in her essay at the conclusion when she describes “letting go”. She says in the case of post-process theory, “letting go” means becoming teachers who know what their students needs, are willing to discuss ideas, listen and practice mutual understanding with students. This idea, seems logical and agreeable to me.
Frankly, I think that if Breuch paid more attention to the writing process, I may have understood her argument better. I am at this point very unclear about what the post-process theory actually means or implies for writing and writing instruction. Based on the work of Kent, Breuch describes assumptions post-process theory brings about writing, that it is public, interpretive and situated. The idea that writing is public is one I agree with. “The assumption that writing is public grows out of the post-process perspective that meaning making is a product of our communicative interaction with others rather than a product of an individual,” she writes. I understand this to mean that writing comes from conversation with others, not just from oneself. The theory also suggests writing is interpretive, suggesting meaning is not stable, an idea I also agree with. The suggestion that writing is situated, is one I do not understand, so therefore do not disagree or agree with.
I feel Breuch is clearer in her essay at the conclusion when she describes “letting go”. She says in the case of post-process theory, “letting go” means becoming teachers who know what their students needs, are willing to discuss ideas, listen and practice mutual understanding with students. This idea, seems logical and agreeable to me.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Perl and Sommers - Cross Talk
Sondra Perl’s article The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers outlines the study she did on unskilled college writers. Though I am not clear on her definition of “unskilled”, I understand the study to be of those students who have typically been classified into remedial-type classes. Perl outlined the three goals of this study were to answer how unskilled writers write, if their writing process can be analyzed in a systematic, replicable manner, and “what does an increased understanding of their processes suggest about the nature of composing in general and the manner in which writing is taught in schools?”
According to Perl, the study was designed with the teachers in mind as the audience for each writing exercise. This was interesting to me because in my experience teachers usually want students to write to peers or someone other than the teacher. In the results of the study, Perl said all of the students displayed a consistent composing process, which was interesting to the researchers because they assumed the process was arbitrary since the writing often seems arbitrary. Perl says for many students “writing led to planning which led to clarifying which led to more writing”. The process involved editing through out instead of writing and then editing.
This study implies that instead of teachers spending so much of their time going over rules for writing, “teachers may need to identify which characteristic components of each student’s process facilitate writing and which inhibit it before further teaching takes place.” Otherwise, teachers may be defeated. These implications make sense to me. I think teachers should spend more time listening and learning where students are getting caught-up in their writing process than focusing on the details of editing. While these are important details, if teachers focus on the prewriting aspects more and the writing aspects and then go over the editing once the students have had an opportunity to actually write, it would be much more effective.
Similarly to Perl, Nancy Sommers also studied the writing process of student (unskilled) writers. Sommers, however, focused on the revision process and compared the students to experienced writers in her article Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. One notable difference she found was that students tend to hold a negative connotation when it comes to revision. They refer to revision and editing as “scratch out and do over again,” “reviewing,” “redoing,” “marking out,” and “slashing and throwing out”. According to Sommers, students usually understand the revision process as a “rewording activity.” For experienced writers, the process is more focused on “finding the form or shape of their argument.” These writers become more concerned with the development and structure of their writing in the revision process than vocabulary, which the students are more concerned with.
Through her study, Sommers comes to the conclusion “students need to seek the dissonance of discover, utilizing in their own writing, as the experienced writers do, the very difference between writing and speech – the possibility of revision.” In short, she believes students can become better writers when they begin to see their writing in a different way. That writing is a discovery process
According to Perl, the study was designed with the teachers in mind as the audience for each writing exercise. This was interesting to me because in my experience teachers usually want students to write to peers or someone other than the teacher. In the results of the study, Perl said all of the students displayed a consistent composing process, which was interesting to the researchers because they assumed the process was arbitrary since the writing often seems arbitrary. Perl says for many students “writing led to planning which led to clarifying which led to more writing”. The process involved editing through out instead of writing and then editing.
This study implies that instead of teachers spending so much of their time going over rules for writing, “teachers may need to identify which characteristic components of each student’s process facilitate writing and which inhibit it before further teaching takes place.” Otherwise, teachers may be defeated. These implications make sense to me. I think teachers should spend more time listening and learning where students are getting caught-up in their writing process than focusing on the details of editing. While these are important details, if teachers focus on the prewriting aspects more and the writing aspects and then go over the editing once the students have had an opportunity to actually write, it would be much more effective.
Similarly to Perl, Nancy Sommers also studied the writing process of student (unskilled) writers. Sommers, however, focused on the revision process and compared the students to experienced writers in her article Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. One notable difference she found was that students tend to hold a negative connotation when it comes to revision. They refer to revision and editing as “scratch out and do over again,” “reviewing,” “redoing,” “marking out,” and “slashing and throwing out”. According to Sommers, students usually understand the revision process as a “rewording activity.” For experienced writers, the process is more focused on “finding the form or shape of their argument.” These writers become more concerned with the development and structure of their writing in the revision process than vocabulary, which the students are more concerned with.
Through her study, Sommers comes to the conclusion “students need to seek the dissonance of discover, utilizing in their own writing, as the experienced writers do, the very difference between writing and speech – the possibility of revision.” In short, she believes students can become better writers when they begin to see their writing in a different way. That writing is a discovery process
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Murray and Emig
Teaching the process of writing is more important than the product, Donald Murray advocates in Teach Writing as a Process Not Product. By this, Murray means teachers should focus on teaching tools to help students explore language, “using language to learn about our world, to evaluate what we learn about out world, to communicate what we learn about our world.” To Murray, the process of writing involves subject development, understanding the audience and how the writer hopes to affect the audience.
I agree with Murray’s assertion. He supports his belief by stating the prewriting process usually takes about 85 percent of the writer’s time. With this statistic, it only seems logical that most of the teaching time should also be spent on prewriting or the process. Murray also goes on to describe ten implications of teaching the process of writing opposed to the writing product. While these implications clearly support Murray’s argument and further establish my agreement with his assertion that teachers should teach the writing process more directly than the product, Murray also fails to recognize the importance of the product. I think some teachers may argue that such a strong focus on the process of writing ignores the outcome and evaluating the product. Ultimately, it is the writing product that the audience reads and evaluates, not the process. I think some attention does need to be given to the product in order to maintain a connection with the readers.
For Janet Emig, writing is unique to the learning process. She asserts that as both a process and a product, writing possesses the powerful learning strategies. “Writing involves the fullest possible functioning of the brain,” she writes. She acknowledges while writing is most commonly presented as a mostly left-brain activity because of the linear process, it is also a right-brain activity due to the creative aspects of the process. Murray would probably agree that the process of writing does involve a lot of creative thought, research and non-linear functioning.
Emig also argues that writing provides “a unique form of feedback, as well as reinforcement”. The results of the process are immediately visible in the product, she writes. The various psychologists and studies Emig uses to support her argument believe results are key to understanding and evaluating the process. Emig’s argument therefore I think supports what I said in regards to Murray’s argument. Murray fails to recognize the importance of the product itself. While the process should possibly be given more attention than some teachers already do, the product is important and should not be overlooked.
I agree with Murray’s assertion. He supports his belief by stating the prewriting process usually takes about 85 percent of the writer’s time. With this statistic, it only seems logical that most of the teaching time should also be spent on prewriting or the process. Murray also goes on to describe ten implications of teaching the process of writing opposed to the writing product. While these implications clearly support Murray’s argument and further establish my agreement with his assertion that teachers should teach the writing process more directly than the product, Murray also fails to recognize the importance of the product. I think some teachers may argue that such a strong focus on the process of writing ignores the outcome and evaluating the product. Ultimately, it is the writing product that the audience reads and evaluates, not the process. I think some attention does need to be given to the product in order to maintain a connection with the readers.
For Janet Emig, writing is unique to the learning process. She asserts that as both a process and a product, writing possesses the powerful learning strategies. “Writing involves the fullest possible functioning of the brain,” she writes. She acknowledges while writing is most commonly presented as a mostly left-brain activity because of the linear process, it is also a right-brain activity due to the creative aspects of the process. Murray would probably agree that the process of writing does involve a lot of creative thought, research and non-linear functioning.
Emig also argues that writing provides “a unique form of feedback, as well as reinforcement”. The results of the process are immediately visible in the product, she writes. The various psychologists and studies Emig uses to support her argument believe results are key to understanding and evaluating the process. Emig’s argument therefore I think supports what I said in regards to Murray’s argument. Murray fails to recognize the importance of the product itself. While the process should possibly be given more attention than some teachers already do, the product is important and should not be overlooked.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
On "A Short History of Writing Instruction" - 1975-1985
The political climate in the late seventies and early eighties is described as conservative. People were responding to the Nixon administration's downfalls by calling for more accountability. In the schools, this meant systems of measuring what students were learning had to be introduced and monitored. As Berlin writes, "Schools everywhere were charged with being 'accountable' for the 'products' they were producing. Students were now considered a commodity to be weighed and measured," (212). Teachers began to focus their curriculum around what students needed to know for the tests, known as "teaching to the test". For writing, however, there was no system in place for measuring it, so there was no reason for it to be taught.
In addition to this new testing phenomena that decreased the classroom time given to writing instruction, Berlin says those responsible for guiding the school curricula may have made matters worse. "Those who did not know how to teach writing were responsible for guiding those who did not know how to teach writing," (213) Berlin writes. College English teachers were charged with this duty, and their expertise was in literary text - not writing.
However, following national attention to the schools' downfalls in writing instruction, such as Arthur Applebee's Writing in the Schools in the Content Areas, published in 1981, changes began to occur. In particular, three national education efforts began, the National Writing Project (NWP), the teacher-as-researcher phenomenon, and the whole language movement.
According to Berlin, the NWP established teacher-training centers designed to improve how writing was taught in almost every state. In this program, teachers who have been successful at writing themselves design instructional materials and share them with other teachers through inservice workshops. The teacher-as-researcher phenomenon focused on returning classroom control to the teacher. "Partly an attempt to resist narrow state and district-mandated curricula, this approach to pedagogy encouranges teachers to study the unique features of their students in order to design the learning and teaching strategies best suited to their students' situations," (215) Berlin describes. Finally, the whole language approach, while closely related to the teacher-as-researcher phenomenon, teachers in this approach were characterized as more interested in the social nature of learning. "They also insist on the integrated nature of reading, writing, speaking ans listening in all experience and argue for the need to create learning activities that bring them together in social environment," (216). This method is one that took hold internationally, Berlin writes, and is more of a collaboration among the disciplines than narrowly focused.
In short, the political climate from 1975 to 1985 followed a call to make schools accountable, the coporate world wanted to be sure students with a degree had actually learned something in school. With a lack of testing methods for writing comprehension, however, instruction of writing saw a turn for the worst. However, three major groups of thought and instruction formed which gave teachers better tools for teaching writing.
In addition to this new testing phenomena that decreased the classroom time given to writing instruction, Berlin says those responsible for guiding the school curricula may have made matters worse. "Those who did not know how to teach writing were responsible for guiding those who did not know how to teach writing," (213) Berlin writes. College English teachers were charged with this duty, and their expertise was in literary text - not writing.
However, following national attention to the schools' downfalls in writing instruction, such as Arthur Applebee's Writing in the Schools in the Content Areas, published in 1981, changes began to occur. In particular, three national education efforts began, the National Writing Project (NWP), the teacher-as-researcher phenomenon, and the whole language movement.
According to Berlin, the NWP established teacher-training centers designed to improve how writing was taught in almost every state. In this program, teachers who have been successful at writing themselves design instructional materials and share them with other teachers through inservice workshops. The teacher-as-researcher phenomenon focused on returning classroom control to the teacher. "Partly an attempt to resist narrow state and district-mandated curricula, this approach to pedagogy encouranges teachers to study the unique features of their students in order to design the learning and teaching strategies best suited to their students' situations," (215) Berlin describes. Finally, the whole language approach, while closely related to the teacher-as-researcher phenomenon, teachers in this approach were characterized as more interested in the social nature of learning. "They also insist on the integrated nature of reading, writing, speaking ans listening in all experience and argue for the need to create learning activities that bring them together in social environment," (216). This method is one that took hold internationally, Berlin writes, and is more of a collaboration among the disciplines than narrowly focused.
In short, the political climate from 1975 to 1985 followed a call to make schools accountable, the coporate world wanted to be sure students with a degree had actually learned something in school. With a lack of testing methods for writing comprehension, however, instruction of writing saw a turn for the worst. However, three major groups of thought and instruction formed which gave teachers better tools for teaching writing.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Using They Say, I Say in peer tutoring
Graff and Birkenstein's text provides several helpful "moves" for academic writing and in the context of peer tutoring, I think these moves can be beneficial both to conversation as well as in writing. Graff and Birkenstein begin by suggesting that writers start their arguments with what "they say". In this way they suggest writers summarize what is being responded to. I believe that a peer tutoring conference can should start in much the same way. Tutors can begin the conversation by explaining to the tutee what their understanding is of what the tutee has written. This can present the tutee with the opportunity to clarify what they mean and will point out areas of improvement in the writing from the very start. Graff and Birkenstein go on to say that writers should present their view only after recognizing what they are responding to. In the peer tutoring conference, this step can be demonstrated by the tutor presenting their views of the tutee's work and or topic. I think, however that this step is less important than the first, providing the tutee a summary of their work and the opportunity to discuss how to clarify it. If the conversation is ready to introduce more depth, I think this step can prove helpful. Especially if the tutor disagrees with the tutee this can provide a unique opportunity for the tutee to try out how to respond to that disagreement before recognizing it and responding to it in their writing. The final step Graff and Birkenstein discuss, tying it all together, is one I think is more difficult to consciously work into conversation. However, it is an important step to discuss in the peer tutoring conference. Pointing out Graff and Birkenstein's outline of transition phrases on page 105, and discussing the use of meta commentary to better clarify points the tutee is wanting to make in their writing are excellent tools for the peer tutoring conference. Ultimately, I do not think the methods presented "They Say, I say" is purely formal and only meant for use in templates or writing. I think the methods are good to remember in any discussion or conversation (written or verbal).
Monday, September 3, 2007
"They Say/I Say" Page 14 Exercise 2
In the introduction to “They say/I say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, authors Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provide their rationale for the text and their inclusion of writing templates. According to the authors, these templates are designed to help people new to academic writing establish a set of “moves” to convey their ideas. They contend that while many people, including Graff and Birkenstein’s own students, believe the use of templates takes away originality and creativity from the writing process, the use of templates will often help writing become more original and creative. According to the authors, “even the most creative forms of expression depend on established patters and structures.” (10) They the examples that Shakespeare didn’t invent the sonnet and most song writers still use the verse-chorus-verse pattern for writing songs. “Creativity and originality lie not in the avoidance of established forms, but in the imaginative use of them,” (11) the authors reply. Graff and Birkenstein insist writing is a way of responding and sharing one’s own ideas as part of a larger conversation, and templates offer people the means and “moves” to enter that conversation.
I agree with Graff and Birkenstein only in the broadest use of their template system. I recognize that their system indeed accomplishes the authors goal, to give people the moves to enter the larger conversation (what ever that conversation may be about). Additionally, their point about the most creative forms of expression being based on patterns and templates is valid, however I question whether the templates the authors provide emphasize enough that writers can and should expand the templates. I believe there are better tools the authors could use to provide students of writing a basis on which to build their writing skills.
The authors explain that their templates “provide concrete prompts that can stimulate and shape such thought” (XV). These prompts include, What do “they say” about my topic? What would a naysayer say about my argument? What is my evidence? Do I need to qualify my point? and Who cares? (XV). I believe these are great prompts for any student to ask them selves when starting to write. I would argue that offering students a sequence of prompts like these for making specific types of arguments would be more effective in encouraging creativity and originality in the conversation. For this exercise, I did not use the template provided, however I created and used prompts and answered those prompts. As such, the format of my essay is similar to the template provided, but using prompts forced me to create my own style for answering those prompts. All in all, I think Graff and Birkenstein’s templates can provide a starting point especially for many new writers, but more emphasis should be given to creating an effective style of ones own.
I agree with Graff and Birkenstein only in the broadest use of their template system. I recognize that their system indeed accomplishes the authors goal, to give people the moves to enter the larger conversation (what ever that conversation may be about). Additionally, their point about the most creative forms of expression being based on patterns and templates is valid, however I question whether the templates the authors provide emphasize enough that writers can and should expand the templates. I believe there are better tools the authors could use to provide students of writing a basis on which to build their writing skills.
The authors explain that their templates “provide concrete prompts that can stimulate and shape such thought” (XV). These prompts include, What do “they say” about my topic? What would a naysayer say about my argument? What is my evidence? Do I need to qualify my point? and Who cares? (XV). I believe these are great prompts for any student to ask them selves when starting to write. I would argue that offering students a sequence of prompts like these for making specific types of arguments would be more effective in encouraging creativity and originality in the conversation. For this exercise, I did not use the template provided, however I created and used prompts and answered those prompts. As such, the format of my essay is similar to the template provided, but using prompts forced me to create my own style for answering those prompts. All in all, I think Graff and Birkenstein’s templates can provide a starting point especially for many new writers, but more emphasis should be given to creating an effective style of ones own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)