#engl 8180

[readingrhet-blog]

[readingrhet-blog]

Branching off the DALN with Effective Literacy Narratives

Though this should be a reading response to focus on the articles, I would like to gear my discussion toward the DALN responses and the question on if the samples we collected were effective in telling their story explaining why or why not. To be honest, I’m mainly doing this because I ran out of room on my one page and wanted to continue writing on my four literacy narratives. The four narratives I picked out, I gathered from searching Young Adult literature in the search engine, or the variations of the key term like YA novels or YA. The four I picked out came in different formats: one was a stream of consciousness essay, one was a comic with several pages, and the last two were video interviews.

Of the four, I found the first piece (the essay) to be less effective at telling a compelling story when compared to the comic/video. Considering most classes require a literacy narrative in first/second year writing classes, I found it interesting that the written format that is commonly assigned, at least the one I typically see coming through the Writing Studio, was the least efficient. The content was engaging because the writer, Peter Shirts, explained that he established literacy as being able to out read his brother; which he accomplished by reading The Hobbit in third grade. Performing that act made him appear more literate in his eyes and his parent’s eyes (according to him that is).

Shirts’ need to appear “literate” shows up again in the videos by Cawp and Appel where they both discussed they wanted to read “high-brow” books. Appel started to read Jane Eyre because her friend was reading it but found that she had trouble with the language, and Cawp identified herself as an “English major snob” when it came to books and refused to read Harry Potter until she found a need for it which led her to fall in love with the story. Shirt’s discussion of his friend aversion of YA literature to “nature writings” or something that is true, and not being able to comprehend why someone would not enjoy this genre of literature is the weakest part of his narrative. Earlier in his text, which again is a stream of consciousness as shown with his sporadic examples, explains that he also found its previous reading interests to be undesirable. So, his supposed inability to understand why others would also be put off by it is weak at best.  

Analyzing my four literacy narratives as effective, ineffective, and why helped me focus on what the author is trying to do as opposed to just taking what they say/write/draw as gospel. Sure, everyone can have their ideas on literacy, but are they utilizing their form of communication effectively?  I’m about to start asking questions so I will move down to my questions section.

My list of literacy narratives:

Peter Shirts essay “Reading from Kid to Adult and Back Again.”

Connor Kilbarger comic “The Language of Paper.”

Kim Cawp casual video “Harry Potter is a Bridge.”

Erica Appel interview video “Writing Teenage Stories.”

Questions:

As we can see in my list, different people communicate differently. How can we help students learn to take control over their means of communication?

How did looking at the effectiveness of the literacy narratives affect your response to them?

What are some literacy narratives that you didn’t find compelling? Why did you not find them effective?

I found a comic book, videos, and an essay. What are other modes of communicating a literacy narrative outside of these three?

[readingrhet-blog]

The regression of "invention" and hitchhikers' guides to teaching writing

For the Crowley reading, I flipped the requirements for the reading response upside down and started with the keywords which I identified as devolution, proposition, definition, and theme. Her key terms, outside of “devolution” that is, stem from her surplus of evidence from previous writers of rhetoric and composition on the concept of invention. Crowley’s evidence takes shape as overlapping quotes and selections from outside authors such as Alexander Bain, John Franklin Genung, H.N. Day, and George Champbell. Admittedly, I have never read any of these authors or have only done so in passing, so her citations and connections between “first-generation” and “second generation” thinkers in Rhetoric and Composition are very appealing. However, all of this evidence limits her argument for me. My problem is that I’m not hearing enough of her voice in her discussion. Every paragraph has an “in (insert gendered-singular-pronoun here) work (insert title here) (insert author name here)” sentence or a “so-and-so, too, includes (insert concept here).” Crowley has more evidence than her voice for my taste. Only after peeling back the evidence was I able to come up with her argument, which is invention plays a more important role in rhetoric and composition than the previous purveyors have implied (Norton 343).  Her "rant" at the end brought back the term "devolution" as opposed to "evolution" since she takes issue with how flippant rhetoricians have been with the concept causing it to revert from progression to the regression of invention.

     Shaughnessy’s essay, or opening for a self-help book for first-year writing teachers, argues that her work will help professors who are dealing with the unwanted task of teaching college students who do not appear to belong there. The evidence she provides is her coding of four thousand essays, which will provide a semi-cohesive trail/map for teachers to follow along with tips on dealing with basic writing (BW) classes (Norton 389). Her argument is limited in two ways. One, Shaughnessy doesn’t display any outside resources outside of her work, which is the exact opposite of my issue with Crowley's work. I only have Shaughnessy's word that her work is building off of others and that her work is the best. Two, though it sounds like her work is coming from a "good" place, I can’t tell if her “helpfulness” is purposefully condescending, or if she honestly believes she is helping others, but she only sounds condescending. Though I enjoy her straightforward style of writing, I feel that she is missing evidence that she didn’t makeup herself and the tone of the article can be misconstrued if she has a preference of sounding condescending or not. Shaughnessy’s keywords focus around adoption, pioneering, and basic writing, Her terms focus on working towards a common goal and taking on great challenges, but it’s this “pioneering” language that makes me weary if she is being facetious or not. I want to believe her because she addresses the concept of error; however, why would professors need a book to help teach basic writing if we don’t help them with their writing errors at some point?

Two more questions:

We should always have outside sources to support our arguments; however, when and/or how do we decide too many voices are taking over our argument? Still being new to this, I’m also tempted to drown my work with as much support as possible, but that takes away my voice from my argument. As both experienced and student writers, where do you draw the line?

How do we get past our obsession with errors?

[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?  

[readingrhet-blog]

Composition in Colleges: Response to Lounsbury, Conners, and Russell

Thomas R. Lounsbury, Robert J. Conners, and David R. Russell provide detailed accounts on their arguments over an issue that many students would not believe arguable.  Since there is a lot of material to cover, I’m going to jump right in with Lounsbury.  His essay, Compulsory Composition in Colleges, argues the uselessness of first-year writing classes and the current method of “producing great writers to order” is not working (Lounsbury 866). Lounsbury explains that we cannot produce great writers, especially by forcing entry college students to study a subject they don’t find interesting. Conner’s argument focused on showing the history of composition, and how Lounsbury’s argument on the uselessness of freshmen comp was not the popular opinion of the academic community (Conner 51).  Conner cited other professors who were compelled by Lounsbury’s remarks to talk to their freshmen classes; who explained, that their horizons had broadened by taking the class even though they didn’t want to at first. Conner explains that most professors have moved from repeating mechanic rules to writing to utilize that space to teach “English for life skills.”

Lounsbury is compelling in a stark way. One of his arguments, well a quotation from Francis Bacon, which reinforced Lounsbury’s previous argument, reminded me of Quintilian’s pedagogy to teach children to understand argument and logic as soon as possible (Lounsbury 880). Lounsbury main argument is that freshmen composition should be elementary practice instead of university practice. Students should already know their literacy before they arrive at college, an argument that I’ve heard a few times. Moving to Conner’s argument that teachers have moved to using first year writing to do more than repeat mechanics, is a silver lining to Lounsbury’s dark (though however funny) cloud. I appreciate Conner’s understanding that first-year composition changes as cultural changes and how it helps students learn skills they need for any part of their life. Sure, students don’t want to take this class, but they most likely need the skills from the class.

*Side note, dueling essays are the best. However since I have trampled the 400-word limit, I’ll stop here and move to questions even though Rusell's sassy illustrations of abolitionists is fantastic.*

Questions:

How does the class feel when Lounsbury calls his side of the FYW argument as “right-thinking”? 

What would the first literacy exam look like? Conner explains it lead to the first literacy crisis, so I wonder how it looked or what questions could have been on it to would have students fail so badly.

If abolitionists, as Russell describes them, had their way to remove FYW classes what are the possibilities and/or pitfalls of this teaching style?