I'm not sure how much I got out of the readings this week. It has been a really hard week for me with my husband injured, having surgery and trying to recover. My attention has been focused on him, but I did read, Trimbur and Rose. I liked Rose because he seems to worry about the students who don't have great skills. I, like Deanna, picked up on this sentence from Rose on page 563 where he writes, “Thus there will always be a percentage of students who will be tagged substandard.” It's the absolute truth. Even if that student is not struggling, or showing severe signs of a lacking in reading or writing skills, they will still be tagged substandard. Educators may think that by labeling them like this it will in some way help them? Then Rose talks about putting college students in remedial classes. He explains that this causes low self-esteem and other problems. Of course it does! To go through elementary, middle and high school as a "normal" student, and then to be put in a remedial class in college is embarrassing I am sure! At that point in a students education, they are thinking they are like everyone else and then to be singled out, is not going to be conducive to better learning.
Trimbur starts off by letting us know that consensus is a learning tool. That by using consensus in the classroom that a higher degree of learning will be achieved. Apparently, some authors argue that consensus stifles creativity and individuality. They go on to say that consensus in collaborative learning can force conformity and suppress differences within students. I would have to agree to that. I always find that an open discussion forum within the classroom helps me to learn more, than if I am just asked to write a piece on what I have read, etc. "Group thinking" opens the eyes of students to others views and may indeed help them to think beyond their own box and learn more than if they were on their own.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Writing to Learn
I like Emig. When I was reading her this week and she was talking about how we use both sides of our brain in writing, I was reminded of our discussion last week about brain function. I guess we were one step ahead of ourselves. Emig says that the brain is "bispheral" when we write. Considering we don't usually use much of our brain, and therefore can not tap into our telekinesis power (bummer), it is amazing to me that writing can motivate the brain in ways so many other things can't. I can honestly say that writing does not come that easily to me. I like to write, my finished product is usually pretty good, but I never imagined i was using that much of my brain to put words on paper. Is it happening write now? I would think that the person writing would get some sort of euphoric feeling, but I am no scientist. Deanna asked in her blog, "How could we as teachers ignore such a powerful tool?". I am not a teacher, but I can see her point. We also talked about students who are taught to write by such "mechanical" standards. Teachers should utilize the brain more, get students to think on their own. Start them when they are young, and when they hit college they will not have to "learn" how to think on their own when it comes to writing, they will already be adept at it.
Free-writing is not a concept I am familiar with at all. I know Peter Elbow values it and I can see his point that it is good for students to learn to write better, and be able to muddle through unwanted things to get to the heart of what they are trying to say. I have never taken a course where I was required to free-write. I'm not sure I could "unstructuralize" (is that a word?) my thinking enough at this point to actually free write properly. I have become so accustomed to organizing my thoughts and words before writing them, I may not even get any joy or worth out of free writing. Then again, I have never tried it, so how would I know?
Along the same lines, I remember reading that Elbow says that reading out loud is the first and true test of good writing. I have to agree with that. I always read my papers aloud to my husband before turning them in, and I always find errors and things that don't sound right that I missed by just reading it to myself. It is a sure fire way to know if your writing makes sense and if an audience's attention will be kept.
I'm having a real problem with the different rhetoric theories and I am hoping some light can be shed tonight in class. I have read it and re-read it, but every time I read, and I'm being honest here, I lose the thoughts half way through the paragraph. Maybe someone could put it in layman's terms for me.......I have a thick skull.
Free-writing is not a concept I am familiar with at all. I know Peter Elbow values it and I can see his point that it is good for students to learn to write better, and be able to muddle through unwanted things to get to the heart of what they are trying to say. I have never taken a course where I was required to free-write. I'm not sure I could "unstructuralize" (is that a word?) my thinking enough at this point to actually free write properly. I have become so accustomed to organizing my thoughts and words before writing them, I may not even get any joy or worth out of free writing. Then again, I have never tried it, so how would I know?
Along the same lines, I remember reading that Elbow says that reading out loud is the first and true test of good writing. I have to agree with that. I always read my papers aloud to my husband before turning them in, and I always find errors and things that don't sound right that I missed by just reading it to myself. It is a sure fire way to know if your writing makes sense and if an audience's attention will be kept.
I'm having a real problem with the different rhetoric theories and I am hoping some light can be shed tonight in class. I have read it and re-read it, but every time I read, and I'm being honest here, I lose the thoughts half way through the paragraph. Maybe someone could put it in layman's terms for me.......I have a thick skull.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Theory and Practice
I find it hard to believe that elementary and high school students are taught to think for themselves when it comes to writing subjects. I recall my own forays into writing in high school and as near as I can recall, I was always TOLD what to write about. I don’t remember ever being given free reign with my thoughts as to what to write about. Granted, we were given parameters and were told to stick to those parameters, but the “specifics” were up to us, as far as what we wanted to write about. Again, those parameters kept u sin check and on course for what the teacher wanted us to write about. Never, until college has I been told to write about what I wanted to write about without restriction. I feel that the writing genius of many a high school student is stifled because of the set structure they must follow, so “a student finds his own subject” does not sit well with me.
I can see the blank look on the faces of my fellow students, and my own to be honest, if I were told in high school to “write anything you feel is true to you”. Huh? Please tell me what to do and how to do it. That most likely would have been my response back then. Young students don’t have to OR get to think for themselves when it comes to writing. I found a boatload of freedom in college writing as the subject is mine, the style is mine, the media is mine. Love the freedom.
Studying theory when it comes to writing is proving difficult for me. I suppose it is because it is my last semester, I have taken so many English classes, read so many novels, written so many analytical papers without a thought to theory, that I feel a little behind in the game. If I had had the theory training before my other English courses, perhaps my writing would have been better. It may have been easier for me to put my “training” to good use. I think that perhaps when students are taught theory, and those theories are put into practice, the student has more of an idea of how to produce authentic writing.
I can see the blank look on the faces of my fellow students, and my own to be honest, if I were told in high school to “write anything you feel is true to you”. Huh? Please tell me what to do and how to do it. That most likely would have been my response back then. Young students don’t have to OR get to think for themselves when it comes to writing. I found a boatload of freedom in college writing as the subject is mine, the style is mine, the media is mine. Love the freedom.
Studying theory when it comes to writing is proving difficult for me. I suppose it is because it is my last semester, I have taken so many English classes, read so many novels, written so many analytical papers without a thought to theory, that I feel a little behind in the game. If I had had the theory training before my other English courses, perhaps my writing would have been better. It may have been easier for me to put my “training” to good use. I think that perhaps when students are taught theory, and those theories are put into practice, the student has more of an idea of how to produce authentic writing.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Spectator Role
In the readings this week I can see that as a spectator. it is my job to decipher what the speaker is really tyring to say.Britton says, "poetic function may be defined as a 'focus on the message for its own sake'" (Villanueva 152). Poetic function is merely trying to decipher a verbal art. It's not as easy as some would think. While poetry is oral art, it is sometimes hard to find the meaning behind the words. I also understand the two types of reading process. Efferent, what we take away from the reading and Aesthetic, what we see during the actual reading. I think on the whole I use the Efferent reading process. Yes, I watch the reader, but it is what I "get" from the reading that most concerns me.
There are many ways a listener or reader can interpret what they are reading. A lot of times, a poet will use a word in lieu of another simply because it rhymes. The impact the chosen word has on a reader depends on how the reader interprets the word, or how they feel it works in the poem or literature.
Grammar
One of the first things this section says is basically that teaching grammar does not help improve writing skills. I disagree. Without proper grammar, you are not a writer. There are structures to a writing and if not done properly, they can even change the way a reader interprets the writing. Grammar is basically a way of organizing words to get your meaning across. Apparently a research study conducted in New Zealand proved that teaching grammar did not improve writing skills. I just don't understand how that is possible. How can improved grammar not improve writing skills? Hartwell says that even if we can't verbally define a grammar rule, we can write properly using a grammar rule. Doesn't that contradict the fact that knowing grammar improves writing?
I think that some grammar rules may in fact confuse a student in writing, but that these errors are more of a accident than a true error. Hartwell gives an example of a student who adds an s to children because it was plural. I actually think that grammar errors as they are defined are more than likely,pluralization, spelling and punctuation errors, than in fact true grammar errors.
There are many ways a listener or reader can interpret what they are reading. A lot of times, a poet will use a word in lieu of another simply because it rhymes. The impact the chosen word has on a reader depends on how the reader interprets the word, or how they feel it works in the poem or literature.
Grammar
One of the first things this section says is basically that teaching grammar does not help improve writing skills. I disagree. Without proper grammar, you are not a writer. There are structures to a writing and if not done properly, they can even change the way a reader interprets the writing. Grammar is basically a way of organizing words to get your meaning across. Apparently a research study conducted in New Zealand proved that teaching grammar did not improve writing skills. I just don't understand how that is possible. How can improved grammar not improve writing skills? Hartwell says that even if we can't verbally define a grammar rule, we can write properly using a grammar rule. Doesn't that contradict the fact that knowing grammar improves writing?
I think that some grammar rules may in fact confuse a student in writing, but that these errors are more of a accident than a true error. Hartwell gives an example of a student who adds an s to children because it was plural. I actually think that grammar errors as they are defined are more than likely,pluralization, spelling and punctuation errors, than in fact true grammar errors.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Discourse and Composition
Discourse = "the full text, oral or written, delivered at a specific time and place or delivered at several instances" (Villaneuva 129).
Kinneavy discusses the Basic Aims of Discourse in this chapter. What he is trying to relay is that discourse needs to have a meaning for the reader or listener for whom it is intended. When a reader or listener chooses a discourse it is usually for pleasure, to be informed, to be persuaded, or for the simple fact of getting proof of a position. Although, these may be things a reader or listener look for in a discourse, he or she can be lead astray by norms within the discourse, and the true intent of the discourse may not be gleaned due to these norms. A reader or listener can be dissuaded by historical, cultural, grammatical, and even the material used. One can never assume that what the author is trying to convey is what the reader or listener will gain from the discourse. For example, if one attends an oral discourse on Eating Healthy for Life,the author may be trying to persuade you to eat healthier for a longer life, but due to cultural norms, a person may not be able to be persuaded to eat the foods discussed, because perhaps of a religious belief that does not allow many of the things on the food list.
What a reader or listener needs to remember is that each aim of discourse contains within itself a logic all its own. When one considers the aims of discourse he or she will realize that each aim, has an internal framework, and organization of its own, and also contains its own set of norms. I suppose in my own readings, from years of analyzing works, I have come to look at the reading in an organizational manner. I start asking myself questions as I read, or when I am contemplating a chapter. When does this piece take place and are the same things relative to me that were relative to people in the time period written about? Are the social norms the same as they are today? Are the cultural aspects of the piece relative to where I live? So many questions that we ask ourselves as readers relate to the aims of discourse.
Contemporary Composition
There are a set of standard components involved in composition: writer, reality, reader, and language. Berlin states in his essay, "the composing process is always and everywhere the same because writer, reality, reader, and language are always and everywhere the same" (Villaneuva 255). What does this mean to me? Well, fist I don't think I agree as when I think of "everything always and everywhere the same" I see me, and I picture perhaps a person of Chinese decent,maybe someone from Guatemala, etc. We are NOT always and everywhere the same. I think what he means by this is that the process itself, no matter where you are from or what you stand for will always and everywhere be the same. Prewriting, writing, and rewriting will never differ no matter the author. He goes on to further explain that the process of composition is a three step process of prewriting, writing, and rewriting. If we take our own experiences as college students, this three step process applies every time we write a paper. We outline what we would like to write about (prewriting), we begin to lay out sentences, paragraphs, and pages of our topic (writing), and the we revise and edit to form the final paper (rewriting).
Within the approaches outlined by Berlin which include: Neo-Aristotelians or Classicists, Posivists or Current-Traditionalists, Neo-Platonists or Expressionists and New Rhetoricians, is the idea that each reader or listener must in themselves discern the truth of a matter that he or she is writing or reading about. He expresses that composition can be learned but not taught. He states, "many teachers...look upon their vocations as the imparting of a largely mechanical skill, important only because it serves students in getting them through school and in advancing them ,in their professions" (Villeneuva 257). A reader is always in intimate contact with reality and in composing, it is the readers' ability to discern truth from the universe of reality and convey that to his or her reader, that makes a composition worth reading. Berlin uses a quote from Robert Cushman who says that, "the central theme of Platonism regarding knowledge is that truth is not brought to man, but man to the truth" (Villaneuva 261). In discourse and composition, truth is fundamental to the understanding of the piece and what the author is trying to convey.
Compositions should be personal as well. A piece can be made more persuasive, more believable, or more truthful when personal experiences are injected. If I compose a work about an African Safari Expedition, but I have never been on one, how realistic is it that the reader will believe in African Safaris and the things that happen or can happen on one? An author using his sense impressions and his intimate view of reality can lend so much more to a work, than an author who uses no personal views of the work. It can be said that it is "always" the writers job to make the reader believe what he or she is saying. Berlin says, "As a writer, you learn to make words behave the way you want them to....Learning to write is not a matter of learning the rules that govern the use of the semicolon or the names of sentence structures, nor is it a matter of manipulating words; it is a matter of making meanings, and that is the work of the active mind" (Villaneuva 267). Composition and the teaching of it, is more than words on paper, or teaching a skill that is mechanical, it is about teaching a student to organize the truths they know into meaningful literature that will help others discover their truths as well. For me, writing to an audience is making them believe in me, using the composition process outlined by Berlin. I organize my thoughts taking into consideration the audience I will be presented to, I write my piece trying to make my words behave in such a way as to bring the truth of the piece forth, and then I rewrite my work always being sure to edit anything that is too colloquial etc. as to reach a broader audience.
Some things can be taught, others must be learned.
Kinneavy discusses the Basic Aims of Discourse in this chapter. What he is trying to relay is that discourse needs to have a meaning for the reader or listener for whom it is intended. When a reader or listener chooses a discourse it is usually for pleasure, to be informed, to be persuaded, or for the simple fact of getting proof of a position. Although, these may be things a reader or listener look for in a discourse, he or she can be lead astray by norms within the discourse, and the true intent of the discourse may not be gleaned due to these norms. A reader or listener can be dissuaded by historical, cultural, grammatical, and even the material used. One can never assume that what the author is trying to convey is what the reader or listener will gain from the discourse. For example, if one attends an oral discourse on Eating Healthy for Life,the author may be trying to persuade you to eat healthier for a longer life, but due to cultural norms, a person may not be able to be persuaded to eat the foods discussed, because perhaps of a religious belief that does not allow many of the things on the food list.
What a reader or listener needs to remember is that each aim of discourse contains within itself a logic all its own. When one considers the aims of discourse he or she will realize that each aim, has an internal framework, and organization of its own, and also contains its own set of norms. I suppose in my own readings, from years of analyzing works, I have come to look at the reading in an organizational manner. I start asking myself questions as I read, or when I am contemplating a chapter. When does this piece take place and are the same things relative to me that were relative to people in the time period written about? Are the social norms the same as they are today? Are the cultural aspects of the piece relative to where I live? So many questions that we ask ourselves as readers relate to the aims of discourse.
Contemporary Composition
There are a set of standard components involved in composition: writer, reality, reader, and language. Berlin states in his essay, "the composing process is always and everywhere the same because writer, reality, reader, and language are always and everywhere the same" (Villaneuva 255). What does this mean to me? Well, fist I don't think I agree as when I think of "everything always and everywhere the same" I see me, and I picture perhaps a person of Chinese decent,maybe someone from Guatemala, etc. We are NOT always and everywhere the same. I think what he means by this is that the process itself, no matter where you are from or what you stand for will always and everywhere be the same. Prewriting, writing, and rewriting will never differ no matter the author. He goes on to further explain that the process of composition is a three step process of prewriting, writing, and rewriting. If we take our own experiences as college students, this three step process applies every time we write a paper. We outline what we would like to write about (prewriting), we begin to lay out sentences, paragraphs, and pages of our topic (writing), and the we revise and edit to form the final paper (rewriting).
Within the approaches outlined by Berlin which include: Neo-Aristotelians or Classicists, Posivists or Current-Traditionalists, Neo-Platonists or Expressionists and New Rhetoricians, is the idea that each reader or listener must in themselves discern the truth of a matter that he or she is writing or reading about. He expresses that composition can be learned but not taught. He states, "many teachers...look upon their vocations as the imparting of a largely mechanical skill, important only because it serves students in getting them through school and in advancing them ,in their professions" (Villeneuva 257). A reader is always in intimate contact with reality and in composing, it is the readers' ability to discern truth from the universe of reality and convey that to his or her reader, that makes a composition worth reading. Berlin uses a quote from Robert Cushman who says that, "the central theme of Platonism regarding knowledge is that truth is not brought to man, but man to the truth" (Villaneuva 261). In discourse and composition, truth is fundamental to the understanding of the piece and what the author is trying to convey.
Compositions should be personal as well. A piece can be made more persuasive, more believable, or more truthful when personal experiences are injected. If I compose a work about an African Safari Expedition, but I have never been on one, how realistic is it that the reader will believe in African Safaris and the things that happen or can happen on one? An author using his sense impressions and his intimate view of reality can lend so much more to a work, than an author who uses no personal views of the work. It can be said that it is "always" the writers job to make the reader believe what he or she is saying. Berlin says, "As a writer, you learn to make words behave the way you want them to....Learning to write is not a matter of learning the rules that govern the use of the semicolon or the names of sentence structures, nor is it a matter of manipulating words; it is a matter of making meanings, and that is the work of the active mind" (Villaneuva 267). Composition and the teaching of it, is more than words on paper, or teaching a skill that is mechanical, it is about teaching a student to organize the truths they know into meaningful literature that will help others discover their truths as well. For me, writing to an audience is making them believe in me, using the composition process outlined by Berlin. I organize my thoughts taking into consideration the audience I will be presented to, I write my piece trying to make my words behave in such a way as to bring the truth of the piece forth, and then I rewrite my work always being sure to edit anything that is too colloquial etc. as to reach a broader audience.
Some things can be taught, others must be learned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
