#comp theory

[readingrhet-blog]

The Writing Process with Emig and Sommers

    Emig argues academics can study the evolution of the creative process through an empirical research analysis of eight twelfth-graders’ writing process. A limitation to Emig’s argument is an issue she noted earlier: writers’ lie, which she explains with an interview between Roy Newquist, interviewer, and John Ciardi, an American poet and translator. When asked about his writing process, Ciardi explained “You’re asking for lies…An act of skill is one in which you have to do more things at one time than you have time to think about.” Emig explains further that writers focus on the challenging nature of writing than the act of writing itself, which I would lead me to believe that twelfth-graders are just as or more likely to lie about such a process. When questioned they are going to provide an answer that they feel will get them the most praise, whether it is true or not. I also found this argument limited because of the sample of students and the labels applied to their schools. Namely, the “almost all-black ghetto” school pointed to a prejudice while setting up the study which makes a reader wonder what other biases applied to this study (246). The evidence for Emig’s study stemmed from the work of previous academics along with interviews with experienced writers to show why she wants to explore the writing process. In my reading, I am having trouble figuring out why Emig has picked the age group she did. The evidence for her study to examine will be the 109 expository themes the students will write in an eight-week period (244). Emig’s keywords, for me, were: writing, process, lies, examination (read as a means to medicate a problem), and observation (to watch and record).

        In Sommers’ argument, she explains that the linear writing models that we have based off of “the five parts of discourse” do not take into account revising written work. Sommers’ based three years work on finding out the purpose of revision in the writing process for both student and experienced writers. The evidence Sommers’ produced for her argument include nine essays, three primary essays with two revisions each resulting in nine essays, by the student writers and the experienced writers, and each writer was interviewed on their revising process at the end of the third essay. Sommers’ evidence to introduce her essay used more straight forward language than Emig’s essay and her use of outside sources she utilized to prove the lack of information on the revision process. My preference of Sommers' argument over Emig's could speak to my inclination for the use of using primary resources for the main argument and secondary sources to set up the background leading to the argument. At least I do when reading articles, as to having success in writing in that format I haven't achieved that yet. Sommers’ keywords are discovery, writers, rewriting, revising, and strategies.

Connections:

A connection between Emig and Sommers essays the study of writing, Emig studying the beginning and Sommers studying the revision process. Both Emig and Sommers focus on student writers and experienced writers in their respective arguments and studies.

Questions:

Why does Emig pick out twelfth graders to study? What is important about this age group that they should be studies and not others? 

To expand upon Sommers’ explanation that “current models of the writing process have directed attention away from revision,” do you believe that academics have overlooked the process of revision? If so/if not, why? 

How is Rohman's "rewriting" and Sommers' "revision" processes different?  

[readingrhet-blog]

Crowley's Literacy Myth

I want to focus my response on Sharon Crowley’s essay and how she uses, what I have haphazardly dubbed, purchase language. Crowley’s essay explains why we still have Freshmen Comp after a brief stint in the 70s when the course became an elective, and she notes that this is the only required class that students face when attending college/university. Her overall argument is that this course should not be required by students; the faculty that teaches this course are taken advantaged of; and this class is only a source of money, not pure academia. Crowley’s argument explains that first/second-year writing classes have transformed into a factory trying to pump out “literate” students when the concept of literacy is abstract, and we can’t measure “good writing.” She proposes that students and professors will benefit if this type of class is electively taken.  

     Crowley’s argument is compelling because of her diction of ownership or purchase language if you will. In my reading, I counted 15 direct uses of purchase language, and if I had read more slowly, I have a feeling that I can find more. The words I picked out are, but not limited to: status, financial, cheap, taxpayers fund, property, cultural capital, curricular status, mutual property, colonized, and the like. And those words are just within the first six pages of Crowley’s essay. I find her’s more compelling as an abolitionistic (I believe that is the correct descriptive form of that word) essay in comparing it to Lounsbury, who, though is a great writer, doesn’t appeal to the heart of the problem. A problem of students taking classes they don't want or see any value in, and overworked professors who (to quote some words I’ve heard many times) “didn’t come here to teach [students] grammar.” A problem of replacing retiring faculty with temporary workers, many who are new to teaching, tasked to produce great writers like a factory hires cheap labor to put a car together.

    The imagery of cars and purchase language reminds me of, and I’m not sure if Crowley meant to do this or not, the Ford Foundation study she cites. This group gathered students reaction to the required Freshmen course, and I found it ironic that the survey that she would use also relates to cheap (or cost-effective, whichever term you would prefer) manufacturing infrastructure. Her formulaic, repetitive use of purchase language and background setting of the Ford company I found brilliant. Crowley also appeals to overworked and underfunded workers, typically TA’s or adjunct professors, who can’t complain because of their status on the totem poll. With Crowley’s essay I can see more of what Lounsbury was trying to say (with a significant reduction on the sass), and, though I thought he had valid points, Crowley’s argument was more genuine and thus more credible for me.  

Questions:

I talked to a friend of mine about idea getting rid of compulsory first/second-year writing classes and making them electives. She thought that was the worst idea in the world because she feels that she learned more in those two years in a required course than the other classes she chose to take. Her argument was that students don't take classes that are "good" for them they take classes that they believe are easy. How would Crowley respond that response? 

How do students benefit from compulsory classes? How do they benefit from elective classes? Can one be more important than the other, and why or why not? 

Who is Crowley’s audience for this essay? She mentions the retired professors and newly hired TAs, but to who is this piece prepared for?