Feeling Accoplished ...

I'm feeling fairly accomplished this weekend.

While I have not completed my draft, I have made quite a few edits to my initial draft and feel confident in the concluding pages I have to come. I added to my introduction as well and feel it has helped to tie the full ideas I tried to express in the paper together.

Feeling accomplished after this weekend is a good thing.

Friday Goals/Accomplishments

Between Wednesday and Today I have completed a lot of my draft. I am currently at 6 pages - I am, however, worried a bit about my draft and that I may be shifting my focus a bit. I think I intended for my focus to shift coherently through the paper, but my goal for today will be to re-read my draft and make sure I'm still on target with my purpose. From there I still have some writing to do about the implications of my research for teachers - my ultimate audience. This work I think will be saved for later today and over the weekend.

In re-reading my work I have decided I need to address the privilege I feel is associated with academic discourse. My thesis and over all concern with this paper I want to focus on is how while academic discourse is a source of power and privilege that acts as a source of opporession of minority students, for the time being there may not be a way to overcome this source of power but there is a way to engage minority students in the discourse and bring them up in the hierarchary present in academic writing.

Along with this decision - I wrote a few more paragraphs (at 7 pages now) and penciled in some edits and questions to my draft.

Wed. goals/accomplishments

Today's goal is to get the foundation for part II of my seminar paper written. I am about half to 3/4 of the way through, so I should be able to finish it.

... and I did it! I also filled in some missing quotes from earlier paragraphs along with the 3 full paragraphs written. (I think I have more than just a foundation done for parts I-II now because I actually spent some time revising those today.)

I will try to work a few hours later today and complete part III of my outline.

Seminar Paper - Update

Today I worked on creating an outline and updating my annotated bibliography more. As far as writing pieces of my seminar paper - I pasted quotes into my outline from sources I wanted to use and wrote some key statements about different parts of my outline.

From here, I need to go through and begin pulling together my thoughts and the sources I have pasted into the outline into paragraphs and eventually ... the paper.

I feel like this process (which is new for me) will be much more beneficial to ensuring I have all the information included in my paper I want to .

My outline - without the sources and thoughts included - looks like this :
I. There are many voices in writing
II. The Academic Voice
a. Comprehension – Humphries
b. What is it? – Bartholomae
c. History - Rose
III. The Minority Voice
a. Royster
b. Melix
c. Lu
IV. Meshing of the minority and academic voices
a. Lydia
b. Glau
c. Majidi
d. Lu
e. Royster
f. What doesn’t work / What does work
V. Teaching – Engaging the minority in academic discourse
a. Northedge
b. Lu
c. Bizzell (Outer-directed theory)

My current Thesis reads:
The academic voice is one often misunderstood or not understood altogether by many students. For minority students for whom English is a second language and/or academic discourse is not represented in their day-to-day lives, engaging in academic discourse communities is particularly difficult and teaching these students to engage in the community requires particular attention.

Annotated Bibliography Revision Plan

My revising plan will be to:

1. Classify Sources
2. Find more sources – Probably will use Lu, Bartholame and Royster and complete survey of students.
3. Relate sources to each other

Annotated Bibliography

Humphries, Stella. "On Language as a Mirror." Reflections, vol. 1, no. 1: 87-90.

Humphries uses her article to relate her experience in the sciences to writing. In Humphries experience, which I think relates to academic writing, "intellectual elites" have a tendency to write in what she calls a "disembodied voice". This type of writing often results in incomprehension by many both within the "intellectual elite" community and outside it. Humphries argument is relevant because she points out how people within certain communities can get wrapped up in their particular style of writing and forget the original purpose of the writing. I think academic discourse communities are guilty of this, especially when it comes to minority students.

Rose, Mike. "The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University." College English, Vol.47, No. 4. (Apr., 1985), pp. 341-359.

One of the most beneficial pieces of Rose's article is the history of writing he gives. Rose brings an understanding of literacy and what it has to do with writing and the instruction of writing, particularly at the university level. When studying the different ways cultures learn, Rose's article will be useful to determine if the ways teachers are teaching match up with the ways students learn how to be part of the discourse community.

Inquiry Project - 'Factness'

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?

I could talk with Roger Moreano, Director of Intercultural Student Affairs - who works on a regular basis with students of differing social and economic status. Also, Kathy Rust, a coordinator for the Intercultural Studies Program, or Ann Frank Wake, a coordinator for the Intercultural Studies Program and Chair of the English department. Also Ron Wiginton who is well versed in writing as well as topics related to people of differing social and economic status. I would also like to talk with students who may have experiences with writing in academic discourse and how their social or economic status has benefited or hindered their education and access to the discourse community.

What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question?

There are several areas I could turn to for reading on this topic. Newsletters or magazines related to issues of diversity might be particularly interesting to get a feel for the experience of the individuals I am most interested in understanding the experiences of. Also composition theorists, but also work by scholars in other academic discourse communities, such as science or maths. These scholars in particular may help me to gain a better understanding of the broad spectrum of how people of differing social and economic status are affected when it comes to academic discourse.

What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)

Observation. Observing people in their comfort-zones of discourse (both talk and writing) could be important. How do people talk or write differently within their own communities outside the academic discourse community? Are there differences between the social/economic groups?

Inquiry Contract: Reflecting on your own writing

When the general public considers the subject I'm working with: they will probably want to know what is meant by "academic discourse" and what are the general rules that make something "academic discourse." Scholarly discourse communities along with the general public will be interested and it will be important to discuss why access to academic discourse is important (or not) for people of differing social and economic backgrounds.

Status quo assumptions in discussions of my topic are that people from minority groups are not as good of writers as people from the majority. It is almost universally believed that people from minority groups have just as equal access to academic discourse communities as people from majority groups.

People who write on my subject typically would like to make academic discourse communities more accessible to students from minority groups. They would expect readers to strongly believe in equality - especially when it comes to education.

Inquiry Contract

ENG 401: Inquiry Contract

I am interested in looking at academic discourse and the accessibility of academic discourse to people of differing social and economic statuses. I am interested in this topic and motivated to research it first because I have an interest in understanding people of different cultures and the communication mechanisms between them. Secondly, I am interested in this topic because I would like to find out if academic discourse is effective and able to reach a wide array of audiences.

While I try to keep an open-mind regarding academic discourse, my current perceptions are that academic discourse, as it is normally presented, is alienating of several audiences. I think one of the main reasons there are less traditional-minority students in higher education is because of their lack of proper instruction and understanding of academic discourse. I agree with some theorists who have said academic discourse is confusing and often incomprehensible to those outside the particular discourse community. There are clear rules and guidelines for academic discourse that I believe students, particularly from social and economic minority groups.

The questions I will try to address in my inquiry project are:
1) Are students from differing social and economic minority groups less likely to effectively engage in academic discourse than students from majority social and economic groups?
2) How can teachers make academic discourse communities more accessible to all students?

Sources:

Primary – I will do interviews and possibly survey College students of differing social and economic backgrounds.

Secondary – “On Language as a Mirror” by Stella Humphries, Reflections Vol. 1, No. 1

“The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University” by Mike Rose, College English, Vol. 47, No. 4

“Trends & Issues in Postsecondary English Studies”, 2000 Edition – with excerpts from Victor Villanueva, Joy Ritchie and Kathleen Boardman, Julie Lindquist, Jacqueline Jones Royster and Jean C Williams

“Schooling and the Silenced “others”: Race and Class in Schools…” Lois Weis, Michelle Fine and Annette Lareau

On Lu's "Professing Multiculturalism:The Politics of Style in the Contact Zone"

I wanted to make a few notes and general thoughts about Lu's essay before really coming to any conclusions on my thoughts. So in rough form, here they are ...

"Why is it that in spite of our developing ability to acknowledge the politicalneed and right of "real" writers to experiment with "style", we continue to cling to the belief that such a need and right does notbelong to "student writers"? (491) - very catching. I love this question because Lu seems to be questioning the purpose for teaching writing. Do we teach writing to engage students in wider society? or do we teach writing to engage students in a specified soceity? or do we teach writing as an avenue for which students can learn who they are and find their own voice? Or is do we teach writing as some strange combination of these? (For the record- I think the latter).

The basics - as we have talked about in class before and Lu points out as well, students get caught up on "the basics" or the grammar skills and then deem themselves as "not good" at writing. Students then get frustrated and may give-up. "And they feel muted and reduced by the curriculum because it does not seem to recognize that they arequite able to grasp subjectsother than "grammar" and demonstrate their understanding of such subjects satisfactorialy to themselves, if perhaps not in writing to others." (491-492) - Is it not one of the first thing we learn in education courses that students learn in different ways? Some are auditory, some visual etc.? Why do we focus on and not move past the basics, or find a new way of teaching the basics?

"Contact Zone" - Pratt describes as space where various cultures "clash,and grapple with eachother, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power" (cited on pg.492).

"I define the writer's attempt to "reproduce" the norms of academic discourses as necessarily involving the re-production - approximating, negotiating, and revising - of these norms. And I do so by asking students to explore the full range of choices and options, including those exculded by the conventions of academic discourses." (492)

Regarding multiculturalism, Lu raises some good points. Students from different cultures may in fact understand English just fine, but have different ways of presenting and writing than our culture. I don't think that makes their writing wrong or less good. I think what Lu implies in her writing is that we need to take the time to understand where student writers are coming from - what their culture is. We need to take time to study other cultures and how they write, what does academic discourse consist of in China, for example? She also questions the standards we hold student writers to - those who are "good" we hold to lesser standards of keeping "accurate" grammar etc. while those who are "not good" are held to higher standards and criticized for not accurately following "the basics".

Inquiry Project - Exploration

Part I: Exploration
1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your Inquiry Project.
Academic discourse and the ability of people from different cultures to engage in academic discourse.

2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?
Academic discourse is something I struggle with. As explained in the next question, I find academic discourse alienating of various populations of people. The purpose of academic discourse and the implications of requiring or expecting that people whose writing fits the realm of academic discourse are intellegent and learned.

3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?
I think academic discourse is alienating. Especially for people of lower class systems in our society, it is more difficult for them to learn how to engage in academic discourse because they do not have examples readily available to them to begin imitating at an early age etc. Class often is also connected to race and I think there is a connection here worth exploring the implications and effects of. I think there is value to writing that does not necessarily fit the realm of academic discourse, both informal and formal writing – there is a fine like I think I am looking at here.

4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?
My main questions are centered around what the fine line between academic disourse and non-academic discourse is. What constitutes academic discourse? How do people understand or learn from academic discourse? Is there a barrier to engaging in academic discourse for people of different social classes/races/cultures?

5. How might composition theorists and researchers approach or study this topic? Does this approach differ from those of other related disciplines (such as communication studies)?
I’m not sure. I think there will be some relationship to intercultural studies or some overlap between the two disciplines, but I’m not sure exactly how composition theorists specifically would approach this topic.

6. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?
I could do interviews of people from various backgrounds and find out about the difficulty they faced in school/college – their grades on academic papers will be telling, were they able to figure out how the teachers expected they write? How long did it take? (Longer for some than others?)

Part II: FocusingWrite an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.

Is academic discourse, as presented and required in academia, alienating of various populations of people within the greater society? And what are the implications or consequences of such alienation?

An Academic Proposal

I just finished reading a short article by Stella Humphries titled On Language as a Mirror (found in Reflections, volume 1 number 1 pgs. 87-90). In this article, Humphries, a former scientist, outlines what she believes is wrong with the language used in scientific discourse. Her insights I believe are applicable to academic discourse in general – and I commend her greatly for finally standing up and saying it.

In concluding her article, Humphries writes

…we falsely assume that research is objective. It has its internally consistent logic, but in the context of the choices scientists make to do their work, it is highly subjective. To support the maintenance of a language that deludes us into believing that only reason is at play, is to deceive ourselves. To allow incomprehensibility to masquerade as knowledge is to disempower ourselves. What is worth saying is worth saying clearly, with personal conviction and in a style accessible to all whose interests it is meant to serve and who directly or indirectly have supported the research that it describes. (emphasis added)

The basis of Humphries argument is in the field of science, what can be applied to every day life from the results scientists get is often incomprehensible. She argues this is because when writing for journals etc. scientists often strive for objectivity. This results in what Humphries calls “writing in a disembodied voice”. She goes on to explain, “This atmosphere, in turn, creates conditions for highly specific terminology within specialized subgroupings, and the language becomes deeply encoded – and incomprehensible to most of us.”

Humphries insights are, in my opinion, right on. What she has finally said in this essay is something I’ve been waiting for someone to say (or waiting to find that someone has said). I think her argument relates very well to Jacqueline Jones Royster in that both authors are arguing for voice. They are arguing that writing for a specific audience, for the “academic discourse” community is alienating. Humphries even goes further to say that even those within the “intellectual elite” (read “academic discourse communities”) often do not even understand what their colleagues have said/written. “I know from personal experience how often colleagues would rather not comment than admit they did not understand something,” Humphries writes. I think any of us could relate to that statement.

My question is this, why do “intellectuals” find it necessary to write in this “disembodied voice” as Humphries calls it. Some composition theorists have said that students have to essentially “fake it” in academic discourse communities until they have been convincing enough to prove that they are smart enough to actually be part of the community. I think what Humphries points out, is that even once we have been convincing to our peers, we still may not actually understand. Our peers may not actually understand. And if those within our own academic discourse communities don’t understand what we have to say, because of the language we use, because of the “disembodied voice” we force ourselves to write in, then how are our theories, analyses, information etc. supposed to get out to the rest of the world? How is what we do, study, write about supposed to make a difference for anyone else if they can’t understand it?

It’s time, in my opinion, that academia write to the world. It’s time academia open their doors and be held accountable to the research they do. As Humphries writes, “On what basis can accountability to a broader society be judged if outsiders are unable to understand the work to asses its quality and its relevance?”

For teachers, there is an implication that we let students use their voice. That we understand the world around us and pay attention to how people actually talk to one another. Think about writing in terms of a conversation (Bruffee anyone?). If we find something important enough to write about, we should also find it important enough to tell our friends or our mother about. How would we tell them the information? How would we explain it to them? That’s what “academic discourse” should be … writing as if we were writing or speaking to our friends or our mother.

Royster Reflectons - My Scene

I was at a conference this past weekend on leadership. Of the ten or so participants in the three day event, I knew one person before the conference started. We were all instructed for the first day of the conference to not reveal anything about who we were and what our jobs are. We were on first-name only basis with each other. This situation provided a setting for cross-boundary discourse. We all had to come out of our zones of comfortable discourse to explain our issues and talk about our jobs and the worlds we work in without revealing what exactly it is we do. This forced us all to speak in every-day discourse, to talk with one another as equals. Of the ten participants, there was a student, a teacher, an elementary school principal, a police detective and body guard, counselors for a women's crisis center, a pastor, a manager for a non-profit organization, and a college administrator.

For the first day of this conference, we were able to understand each other not by the jargon we used or through specified discourse, but through common language - through cross-boundary discourse. As Royster comments, individual discourse communities can be disheartening and alienating for those not familiar with that discourse community. The importance of being able to come out of that community and work with/communicate with people of other discourse communities effectively is what (I think) academic discourse should really be about.

When the First Voice You hear is Not Your Own

For possibly the first time since reading Bruffee's essay on collaborative learning, I finally found an essay that got me excited about composition theory. In Jacqueline Jones Royster's When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own, I found an argument addressing all of my questions and problems - especially those dealing with academic discourse. This was an article I finally was able to read all the way through, actually engaged in and excited about, instead of annoyed with.

Royster writes towards the end of her essay "Students may find what we do to be alienating and disheartening....Their experiences are not seen, and their voices are not heard." If she is talking about academic discourse - She's right on the money with my feelings. Royster argues that teachersneed to listen, pay attention to the voices and differing experiences and interpretations. She writes, "We need to get over our tendencies to be too possessive and to resist locking ourselves into the tunnels of our own visions and direct experience." I feel academic discourse does just that, academic discourse says (as Royster writes) "You people are intellectually inferior and have a limited capacity to achieve." What academic discourse should be, in my opinion, if it is to be the space for true learning and expansion of knowledge to take place, is to engage people in different experiences. There should not be a need for students to "fake-it" until they understand the moves of writing for academia. Academia, teachers, instead need to encourage voice, encourage experience; academic discourse should be the ultimate cross-boundary discourse.

Bizzell - "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty"

Patricia Bizzell introduces her essay with the question "what do we need to know about writing?" I find this to be a vaild question, and while she provides an attempt to answer this question, I am not confident that I understand what her answer is. There are a few aspects she notes in relation to thought and writing that resonate with me.

Bizzell writes that theorists "now see the 'writing problem' as a thinking problem primarily because we used to take our students' thinking for granted". While she seems to later acknowledge that it is now important to understanding students thinking process as much as their writing process, I am offended by her implication that students today don't know how to think. (I mean, seriously, isn't 13 the age to be a know-it-all?)

As Bizzell goes on to describe inner and outer directored theorists and their beliefs as related to writing, it was the argument of outer-directed theorists she summarized that caught my attention. "Outer directed theorists would argue that we have no reason to believe, and no convincing way to determine, that our students can't think ouruse language in complex ways. It's just that they can't think our use language in the ways we want them to."

My response to this theory is "YES"! I can see where people would disagree with this theory, however I would argue that they are simply resistant to change. I mean, of course people are not thinking/writing/processing in the same way today as we were thirty, twenty, ten or in some instances even five years ago. And I argue it's not our fault either. Times change. Each generation grows up with new technology and new philosophies with which they are raised. It should be clearly evident this fact would have a profound impact on thinking/writing/processing etc.

But back to Bizzell.

The grad student essay by Linda helped me to better understand how Bizzell was using innter and outer-directed theorists to answer her initial question. Linda writes, "Bizzell claims the answer to the question of what we most need to know about writing comes from both camps. She uses the example of Linda Flowers and John R. Hayes' inner-directed model of the composing process. Though Bizzell admits it works as an effective model of what to do (it is hierarchical and recursive), it falls short in that it doesn't tell us how to do it. Bizzell proposes that it needs the help of the outer-directed theorists to fill in those holes."

Collaboration is a value of mine, so if Linda is right and Bizzell truly is arguing for a collaboration of the theories as the answer to what we need to know about writing, I would ultimately agree. Flower and Hayes (and inner-directed theorists) focus on discourse and how to be involved and part of the discourse communities, while outer-directed theorists for me imply the need to adapt the discourse communities to changing times opposed to individuals adapting to old models of the discourse community.

Though I don't think I have exactly followed what Bizzell outlines, I do think there are some interesting things I have deciphered from her essay.

A quick thought on academic discourse

... in order to not forget a thought ...

I think, at this moment, that academic discourse is a joke. All it really does is reinforce boundaries between "educated" and "uneducated", but only in terms of those who are educated or uneducated in certain ways - ie "book smart". I think having all of these audiences and means of discourse just complicate writing further and keep our society separated.

I could go on, and probably contradict my own view... but I'll wait.

Any thoughts?

Bartholomae - Inventing the University

I think we have all been here. Trying to figure out what the teacher wants us to write, trying to figure out the best way to write it. I have to give David Bartholomae kudos for acknowledging students actually fake it. Initially, my thoughts on this article were along the lines of "finally, someone realizes that I'm trying to do twenty things at once and please twenty different people who each want fifty different things from me". But then, I wasn't sure what his advice for me was. As a student, as a writer, should I really just go on faking it?

Bartholomae seems to assert several times through his article that student writers simply have no choice but to conform to what their teachers want. He argues exercises that ask students to write to someone who has no knowledge of the topic are near pointless. The clearest expectation Bartholomae presents, in my mind, is when he writes "One of the common assumptions of both composition research and composition teaching is that at some "stage" in the process of composing an essay a writer's ideas or his motives must be tailored to the needs and expecations of his audience." This idea, I think, says "yes, fake it, but be as real as possible while you're at it."

Since when did writing become so complicated? We have to address the audience, but not at the same time. Remember to follow a "Process", but don't follow the "process". And then we have to fake it and be real all while revising as we write but remembering to hold revision until we're done with the draft. If nothing else, this article has helped me to understand that like everything else in the world, there are several ways to think about writing - several ways to teach it, critique it, do it and move it.

A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing

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.

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.

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.