Landmark Essays...Perl and Runicman - For Feb 22

These essays were quite interesting to me. The first one, "Understanding Composing" made some very good points. The first point that I didn't entirely understand when I first read it was "writing is recursive." It honestly took me several times of going through and re-reading to comprehend exactly what the author was trying to say...It's funny that I had trouble with this concept because it is very similar to what the phrase itself is explaining. I do believe that writing is recursive...at least in my case. When I am writing a paper, I am constantly going back and reviewing what I have written (usually every 4 - 5 sentences). I am also guilty of the second "recursive element" in the fact that when I get stuck on a piece of writing I will usually throw that "key word" (which differs from paper to paper, depending on the topic) back into the mix to help get myself going again. ***A quick note, I did not entirely understand the third recursive element. One thing about this entire essay is that the idea of "understanding composing" would greatly differ if they were studying my composing habits. To understand my composing habits, that is, when am I ready to write, requires an understanding of just how I approach writing. This relates on some levels to "my composition space." My composition space is at my desk facing two monitors using a word processor which affords certain luxuries (i.e very easy editing). What tells me when I am ready to write? I know I am ready to write when I have a coherent thought about what I wish to write about. Allow me to explain: Let's say the prompt is "Death Penalty: Pro or Con." Before I even begin to write, I need to (for my own composing process) a) decide which side I will take, b) gather a short list (3 - 4) sources which support my claim and 1 source which counters my claim (which I will then counter with my argument later in the paper), and finally c) determine my thesis. Once I have these things, I am ready to write. I also want to point out that I do find writing "fun," which leads into the second essay by Runicman. This article discussed so many ways in which society considers writing to be an "unfun task." Sadly, I think that a large section of the population agrees with that statement. I personally find writing a paper, or anything for that matter, rewarding in the end. When I write a paper, even if I get a bad grade, when I am finished I typically have a sense of accomplishment and pride. One of the reasons that people supposedly don't enjoy writing is because it is very easy to get "stuck." Personally, I have always found that when I am writing and encounter a place where I am "stuck" (i.e. cannot figure out how to present my argument, how to word a certain phrase, how to express an idea) that half the fun of writing the paper in the first place is figuring out how to get around the "stuck-ness." I think unfortunately, for most people, when they get stuck, they get frustrated, and this leads to the "un-fun" reputation that writing currently carries.

Landmark Essays...Graves, Perl, Flower & Hayes, Sommers) - For Feb 20

All of these essays were very informative. The first thing that I realized was that a case study is a ton of work...(not to say that I thought it would be easy) but it seemed that the essay by Graves on the writing process of seven year old children. I thought the "recording of a writing episode" was extremely complicated (and this would have been "pre-technological boom" that we have seen in the late 90's to now). The amount of data that was recorded from one event was phenomenal. It was also interesting to see the different processes of the "case-study" seven year old when it comes to writing and one of the more interesting points made refers to the idea that "children write for unique reasons, employ highly individual coping strategies, and view writing in ways peculiar to their own person." (Graves 35). In other words - a child's composition practices are complex indeed. The complexity of a case study was further demonstrated in Perl's piece discussing the composing processes. The system of "symbols/codes" used in this study was, to me, far too complex. Though this system used was very complicated, it did yield very good results when referring to being able to diagnose the different stages of writing. I found it interesting that the "unskilled writer" read the directions and the question of the prompt twice. Most "unskilled" or "poor" writers would typically quickly read the prompt and then begin to form an argument without a clear comprehension of the question. A skilled writer would read, reread, and then potentially reread the question yet again to make sure that he/she attained a clear understanding. The list on page 44 listed the different information that could be gathered from the charts due to the method in which the information was transcribed. Another interesting facet was the idea of "miscue analysis." I wasn't too sure, but the way I interpreted this idea was that sometimes students will read a passage and then "develop their own" meaning, so that it makes sense to them...when the meaning that was developed was never actually in the text. As I continued to read, I learned that it also applies to a student's writing, which goes against the notion that I currently believe to be true. I strongly believe that everyone, students and professors, typically compose written text with greater attention to grammatical structure and a higher level of coherence than when they speak. This idea apparently does not hold true to students who are "unskilled writers" as according to the data from the miscue analysis table on Tony, he would speak, and then commit certain grammatical mistakes when writing his ideas down. Another interesting fact that I found was in the essay "The Cognition of Discover: Defining a Rhetorical Problem" by Flower & Hayes, the idea of reflection and thought when approaching a prompt between what they define as novice and expert writers. The all the aspects of a rhetorical problem were clearly addressed (as exhibited by the table) by the expert writers numerous times to help make their points clear, whereas the novice writers would only address certain parts of the problem. This fits a problem that (at least according to my high school English teacher) plagues most high school writers (who for the purposes of this argument would fit the "novice" writer description). Students will only answer "part" of the question, typically the part that he/she feels the most comfortable with, and assume that they have effectively answered the entire prompt. Finally, the piece that discussed revision made a point that I could very easily relate to. Page 78, all of the "revision strategies of student writers" make very clear sense to me (probably because when asked what my idea of revision/rewriting, I used similar vocabulary. However, many of the statements made by experienced writers on revision also made sense to me, especially the one that starts "I rewrite as I write..." When I was writing papers for my high school English class, I would write the paper completely and then revise. In college, I have found that as I write a paper, I'll be more "actively engaged with the text and will revise my writing right after I type it.

Writing New Media - For the Feb 8 Post

The pieces found within WNM were also interesting and instead of rambling on my blog, I'll focus on one point that really bothered me about the whole piece. The second chapter that discusses David's story makes the argument that perhaps David failed because the classes he was taking did not address "new media literacies" which he was skilled in and that the only addressed traditional literacies. Okay...if you are taking an English class and you are unable to form coherent arguments and take a rhetorical stance on a topic and prove it then yes...you are ultimately going to fail that class. The classes that David did not succeed in I'm going to assume were classes that focused on traditional literacies. Should these classes address new media? NO! If you want a class to address new media, take a class on new media; don't expect the current traditional literacy classes to teach it. It would be the same situation if I were to walk into my English 100 class and expect that my skills in web design would get me through. No, the primarily objective of an English 100 class is not to teach web design but composition, and for me to expect to be taught web design or expect to pass that class will no comprehension of composition would be foolish. This gets to another interesting point...who defines what is considered "composition?" The way I interpret composition would be the creation of written texts. Now, that's not to say that other mediums cannot be considered to have "composition pieces" integrated in them. However, in the case of this class, composition was intepreted in a traditional sense.

Another point that came up during my reading of chapter 1 of WNM (and was also brought up in class) was the idea that Wysocki discusses all the reasons why teachers need to implement "new media studies" into the classroom. I'm not saying that "new media" is a concept that has no place in academics. I think new media will enable students to get a "richer" picture of the material they are learning due to the enhancements (i.e. photographs, video clips, audio files, etc) that they afford over traditional textbook learning. However, one very important thing to look at is the actual chapter/book itself. This book that so heavily advocates new media and all of its benefits is produced in a traditional manner itself. Why? It seems to me that the majority of academic settings consider "new media" to not have equal merit to a traditional text. For most of the academic community, if you want a point to be taken "seriously" (and I use this word in referring to the ideas of tenure, authority, etc) you need to publish in traditional text. Take this text for example. I think I would be able to get more out of it if it was in fact an online text based form. If there were various hyperlinks and different media (photos, videos, etc) used, I think that my understanding of this text would have been greater; however, would the text have had as much authority...?

The Process Project... - For Feb 15

Okay, this blog is being composed simultaneously with a chat being completed online for our ENGL 486 class. Also...to put this out there, I've launched a Geocities website to go along with my blog...
www.geocities.com/theoriesofcomp .

I received an e-mail saying that my geocities website has been shut down because it violated some rules apparently (supposedly you aren't supposed to link to other pages within your page) So scratch the geocities page for now. Anyway, the discussion on the process essays was quite interesting...I don't think that the online class did these readings justice. When discussing the essay within "A Guide to Composition Pedagogies," the largest point made here would be "are we post process?" And if so, is that really a bad thing? [Now is the time that I get on my soapbox] It seems that (and I relate this to the journal task) over time writing has undergone several transitions throughout history. To go so far back as early British Literature, obviously the style/subject matter of this writing was considerably different from Renaissance Literature, and still different from Victorian Literature. Why use these different periods to illustrate my point? Writing changes over time. So what if we are no longer focusing on the process but more on content? That brings another point, that post-process what do we focus on now for content? Lets take the idea of focusing on any topic, be it mathematics, chemistry, computers, technology, biology, Shakespeare, Romantic Poetry, and then apply the idea of the process movement to that. How so? Have students examine the process that they used to write the papers on various topics. How does writing a paper on a topic that the student likes influence their writing style. To continued along with this, also within the same chapter, under the heading, "Process pedagogy has become so regimented that its has turned into the kind of rules-driven product that it originally critiqued." I think that unfortunately for process to have been successful for so long, it would take a great deal of "tweaking" and modification until teachers finally got it right. This does require some regimentation. To finish up on this set of readings, a few of my feelings about the Landmark Essays. One of the key questions I had that the text discussed was the idea of a "composition handbook" in comparison to a rhetorical text. These "composition handbooks," were they modeled on the "MLA" rules for writing handbooks that we have in classrooms today? According to the essay they were designed to "help younger students of both sexes in the middle and lower classes achieve a basic written literacy." The largest question that came out of these readings for me was "are we post process?" I have to say we are...and this is an unfortunate thing. It seems to me that when students are "in touch" with their writing, they have a better understanding of the rhetorical/literary devices they are using, which typically generates "better writing" (I also know this is a very "loaded term"). An additional interesting fact I found was the essays in "Landmark Essays" were written a while ago (though the Faigley essay was written in '86, the Emig article was written over 30 years ago) and the Emig article really heavily focused on the process movement itself while the essay in Guide to Composition Pedagogies (written much later) focuses on what we need to do now that we are, in fact, "post process." My last comment...really isn't a comment but more of a question. I really had a hard time understanding the section relating to "social view." Any insight to this would be greatly appreciated.

Whats Happening?... - For Feb 13

In reflecting on the happenings; several things come to mind. On the whole, as a student I can say that all of these "happening activities" sound a bit too "out there" for me. But I digress; I'll begin by saying that the one situation that bothered me the most was the "Silence as Experience" situation. "My words are my everything" is the saying that I tell those around me. Doesn't matter whether I'm having a conversation or sitting alone by myself, words, specifically spoken words, are how I brainstorm. When I have a paper to write, as was the case for the students in "Silence as Experience," if I am not talking aloud to someone, a roommate, friend, or professor, I am sitting infront of my computer (which I define as my "composition space") and typing my document while speaking out loud to myself (no I'm not crazy, it's just part of my composition process). The idea of taking away my speech (as a "happening") is quite troubling. I can honestly see that I believe that if I were to participate in this event my writing would suffer more as I would have to constantly attend to the fact that I was unable to speak. It would also hinder my brainstorming process as I would not be able to "discuss" (with others or myself) my writing. (Not to mention that the whole idea of being silent for that long of a period of time would be virtually impossible for me unless I was asleep.). Continuing through the readings, one point made in the text, "English Composition as a Happening" that "English Composition is the proper introduction to the possibilites of the university, a prevew of what the university is about." I think this is unfortunatly true. Let me explain: English Composition does not focus on writing practices (as was the case in my ENGL 100 course, we read from a reader and would spend the bulk of the class discussing these readings. The reading topics were all very different and dealt with materials from many disciplines...supposedly a sampling from all of the different areas the university teaches. I don't think this is a good thing though. I for one would like to see first-year composition courses that STUDY COMPOSITION (i.e. more emphasis on the actual art (yes art) of composing a text and when you do have to read materials...have them be on items related to composition, such as texts relating to the...I don't know...process movement? At any rate, (at this point i'm wondering if anyone is actually still reading) as I continued to read, one of the pieces that sounded completely "crazy" to me was the one titled "Making Freshman English a Happening" From CCC. Some of the ideas presented in this article baffle and astound me. "Be an ice cream cone - change flavor?!??!!" Come on...how does that contribute to composition at all except to put students in a "non-academic mindset." Most of the suggestions from this piece sounded absoltely crazy to me, hitting your head against desks, or going about the class looking only at your feet? The final piece I'll address in this blog (as I feel I have begun to ramble) is the piece about "Freshman Masks." I will say that everyone, myself included, is guilty of this; puting a mask on to make their writing seem more "professional," "deep," or "insightful." Is it a bad thing? Yes, when students use language they don't firmly have a grasp on and begin to ramble about a topic and completely destroy any meaning. However, if a student does have control of the language then adopting a mask to change one's writing style would not be the worse thing in the world.

Thats all about the happenings...I am sorry it took so long to get this post up..been plagued with computer problems. Feel free to post comments and i'm going to try my best to post comments on other people's blogs.

~Adam

Writing at Cross Purposes/Pro-Verbal Boxes - For Feb 6

Hello All!

Was having major computer problems over the past few days - (A helpful hint, don't upgrade to Windows Vista unless you are prepared to hunt and search for each individual driver your computer needs & for the love of everything BACK UP EVERYTHING OF ANY VALUE ON YOUR COMPUTER) - at any rate, I'm here to comment on the readings for the past two classes and make some general statements about today's upcoming class readings.

Pro-Verbal Boxes and Writing and Learning at Cross Purposes:

All of these texts make very valid points; that confining the concept of composition simply to "written texts" instead of new media texts ignores the many other medias that surround the first-year student in an academic setting. It is also very important to note that perhaps these new medias are just as important (if not more important as some experts would argue) as traditional modes of composition - however - one point that I strongly agree with in the Pro-Verbal box article is that "composition is largely a conservative discipline." This is a really important idea. Why? First-Year Composition (which I believe this article to be largely centered around) should (in my opinion) be focused primarily on development and production of traditional linear text-based works. Yes, during these classes you will probably develop texts that will utilize new media, however, you will develop these texts in traditional formats, which I believe is the goal of a first year composition course - to allow you to create these "Traditional Texts." I would like to put out there that I am not against the creation of new media texts, however, I think that these texts should be taught in other classes, such as classes focused just on new media instead of composition courses. The other work, which discusses writing across the disciplines, comments on why students are writing. Students, and I say this simply from my own experience, write to satisfy the requirements of their audience in an academic setting. That is to say, students write for the grade. This is unfortunately true. If a student likes to use complex metaphors and similes in their writing and a teacher specifies that he/she does not want "flowery writing" (and yes, this is a term I've heard before) then for the most part the student will adapt his or her writing to fit this purpose. The article also made the point that students tend to develop more complex and rhetorical stances on topics when the topics are within their fields (i.e. a math student writing about differential equations). I have to completely agree with this - the idea that a student who is interested in the topic he or she is writing about will develop deeper meaning and complexities with the topic just makes sense. If you were to give me a paper on the biochemical properties of the human brain (a topic I know nothing about and have no desire to learn about) my arguments would be largely a "summarizing of facts" with a very low level of rhetorical argumentation whereas if you were to present me with a prompt discussing the processor speeds of computers and how it relates to a computers ability to complete complex calculations in a specified amount of time then my argument would be much more complicated and would also, unlike the 'brain paper,' implement the language of the discipline in a more natural manner.

As for the happenings...
The works often used the word "random" but coupled it with statements such as "controlled" or "order." Looking forward to discussing this in class today...should be interesting...

Workshop Outcomes - Open for Discussion - For Feb 1

Thursday's discussion of the Workshop Outcomes of 1950 v the WPA Outcomes of 2000 was very enlightening. I thought as a class we were able to touch on a lot of the important points but there were a few I would love to open up and see if anyone would like to have a discussion about. I think one of the most interesting points in the 1950's outcomes was the ideas regarding grading of student composition. I was very torn about this issue. I agreed with several of the points that were made - specifically (within Workshop No. 7) Point No. I 5 & 7, Point No. II 3, Point No. III 1 & 5, (I had comments about the other points, but I'll wait to see if anyone actually wants to engage in a discussion before I type all of my comments. Point I, subpoint 5, - the idea that papers written at the end of a course should be more heavily weighted than papers written at the beginning. I believe one of the most important goals of a first-year composition would be improvement. If a paper at the beginning of a semester is average, and then after an entire semester of instruction a student turns in a phenomenal work, it shows that the student has in fact learned from the instruction that he/she was provided. To go along with that, subpoint 7, I personally think that anytime a composition professor grades a work, whether it be a passing grade or a failing grade, that comments should be provided so the student is able to see the flaws within a paper, or on the other side of that, the strong points of his or her writing. I would love to hear feedback; do you agree with this idea? Is it essential for teachers to put comments on student work or is the simple letter grade enough? Continuing with this; Point II, subpoint 3, I personally think that a student should be able to ask a professor/the professor should provide the student with an example of what an “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, or “F” paper actually is. If an example can’t be provided, then a very, very clear explanation of what is required to achieve a specified grade would be great. Finally, Point III, subpoints 1 and 5, the idea that revision is ESSENTIAL to good writing. I think that a student, upon earning ANY grade on a piece of composition should meet with a professor and discuss ways that the writing can be improved. I realize this is not always possible with some classes due to size, however, I think that the idea of revision is absolutely required to help develop better writing practices. Like I said earlier, I would love to hear other’s points of view on these topics or any other ones that you want to discuss!!! If you want to kick around ideas here that’s fine or I am also available on Facebook (My full name is Adam Knatz) or by AIM Instant Messenger (if that is a better communication medium for you) at aknatz04.

Hoping to engage in some discussion!!!

This is a test post...

So during class on Tuesday, we discussed the piece titled "Because This is Who We Are" (To a blog post about this, please click here)

This is only a test!

This way; let's say this was on YOUR blog page, you could have the reader of your blog link directly to a post that I have made on my blog.