"Why the 'Research Paper' Isn't Working" by Barbara Fister

Barbara Fister’s “Why the ‘Research Paper’ Isn’t Working” touches on something that gave me a very hard time when I first returned to school—citations. Until I got used to HOW I was supposed to cite things—meaning after I bought the better citation handbook by Diana Hacker—I was terrified to quote lest I did something wrong when I got to the “Works Cited” section, looming over me with all those specific rules, at the end. Fister’s love of the idea presented by Nick Carbone: “…students first learn to write using sources the way people outside academia do—drawing them into the text as journalists and essayists do” is shared by my former freshman self.  

However, had I not had to plunge forward and learn the different rules of citing, as well as the correct form of entering quotes (which had not changed very much since I was in high school—only the movement towards MLA) I would have had a terrible time as I moved into the classes where I was required to include annotated bibliographies and other more complex citations! I admit, the freshman me often skimmed the surface a little or did not include a piece that looked too threatening to cite, but again, it is a necessary evil and avoiding it completely until later might be a huge mistake. Fister’s suggestions about calling it a presentation are useful in that it makes for a more interesting approach to the assignment, and a slightly more cautious stroll into the citation arena could prove helpful to many students—even including a quick reference guide for them to follow. I had one wonderful professor who did that, after I had the Hacker book, but I know it was a life saver for many students in that class, and they kept it handy for other papers.

Practice makes everything become easier and the process, unfortunately, has to be learned. From recent experience I can attest that waiting does not make it any better.

The Popularity of Formulaic Writing (And Why We Need to Resist) by Mark Wiley

Who is this Jane Schaffer and why does she want to create a group of clones who can write ONLY as her approach dictates? I recognize and sympathize with the difficulties many students face as they begin writing more demanding, involved papers. More importantly, I feel the frustration of both the students---struggling to produce something effective on paper—and teachers as they begin the arduous task of placing a grade on that student’s product. While the teacher tries to write what they believe are encouraging comments, they may be shooting down what the student believed was their masterpiece! To instead, have a neat little packet which anyone can follow in easy-to-use steps, sounds like a life-saver and might very well be just that—initially. However, I agree wholeheartedly with Wiley’s contentions that once ALL students have the basic “formula’ down pat, many will have no idea how to progress (or digress) from this concrete set of writing rules. Because they have never had to experiment with their own process: brainstorming, finding their voice, organizing thoughts in their very individual style for the audience (the teacher) to appreciate and offer suggestions on, there can be no growth or understanding of how they-the writer--can improve. Without this experimentation with process—and often failure—the ability to move forward is simply not there. 

For some, the skills needed to complete their required writing projects might be enough. Those students might benefit by the implementation of Schaffer’s program as a tool to get them started in the right direction. Students who have a more creative desire to write individualistically might be able to progress beyond the simple formula and feel encouraged to do so. Other students who are comfortable only with following this step-by-step plan, might be challenged to go further, but will rely on the process they are comfortable with. Writing should be something all people can enjoy and feel confident about, particularly if they are referencing personal experience. Schaffer’s inclusion of instructions for that in her packet is unsettling to me, and Wiley is on point about a student’s dependency on her program. It stunts the growth of each writer’s process of discovery—of self and of their unique style. How can one develop or hear their voice if they are writing through the voice of formulaic steps, carefully adjusted to serve the masses? And without the voice, their growth as writers, and as people, never even begins so their desire and awareness of an audience (other than the teacher who assigned the paper) is nonexistent. The lovely intangibles each emerging writer embraces are reduced to following a rule book for structure and content thus putting an end to the joy of writing something where one hears their voice and actually likes it! No more creativity, no magic on paper. Better to follow Wiley’s suggestion and utilize this for young writers, to give them a solid base, and then say goodbye to Jane Schaffer forever!

Richard Straub’s “The Concept of Control in Teacher Response: Defining the Varieties of 'Directive' and 'Facilitative' Commentary”

I actually enjoyed this piece a great deal despite the misgivings I had initially when I saw the pages with corrections on them! Straub lays the groundwork simply; teachers should NOT take over a students’ paper as it then stops being the students work. It is difficult to know when one must stop when helping—and in a teacher’s case—guiding each student to a successful outcome. By making comments which do not fix or change the work but instead brainstorm with the student-writer, a teacher can: “…share responsibility with the writer” (225). 

This question of directive or facilitative responses is a tricky one; quite honestly, I still have trouble discerning one from the other. Straub, however, really makes great strides with the sample composition and the comments by well-known, respected teachers. The study illustrates how different teachers would respond to student writing, and which way or ways proved more effective for students (without writing for them).

I found all four very helpful, albeit different tools were offered, and different reactions presented to the piece itself. Peterson’s was a little directive but softened with facilitative words. White’s was even more facilitative and Gere’s was up on top. Peter Elbow’s was a whole other animal; he acted as a very encouraging reader, but probably not as much help as the student might have expected! However, he gave suggestions, as they all did, and the paper’s course was then placed back in the student’s hands—where it belonged.

None of these four gave strictly directive commentary, which is encouraging as it displays the trend towards allowing students to make their own choices in their writing matters. Straub notes one important fact: “…the optimum style of response for any teacher is going to be a function of her personality and teaching style” (247). In the end, it all comes down to the interaction between the teacher and student, and each teacher’s ability to know when to guide and when to stop. The models illustrated in this paper by Straub through his study, serve as excellent tools for teacher’s to model their own comments. The outcome is sure to benefit all involved in the writing process.

"Looking Back as We Look Ahead" by Kathleen Blake Yancey

Kathleen Blake Yancey, a voice I am coming to enjoy hearing very much, once again reminds us of the numerous changes that have occurred in the field of writing assessment since the first steps towards improvement on the old, stilted methods of the 1950’s and before.

She both reveals more details of the three waves, as she clarifies their distinct methodologies, as well as the way they do overlap each other. I believe the metaphor of “waves” creates the visualization, making it more powerful as one thinks of the meshing of ideas and often the overpowering and eradication.

I was a young student during both the first and second waves, and recall some of the more simplistic tests as well as the varying styles of teacher feedback. As a returning student, I was delighted at the new assessment tools in use, particularly portfolios, which is also used in other departments outside of English. My children were younger student during the early days of the Third Wave, so some of these transitions were not brand new to me. However, they were new for me as a student, and I immediately recognized the value of portfolios over a multiple choice test on reading!

Yancey also speaks about reflection as a necessity in preparing one’s portfolio and that is what makes the portfolio experience so dynamic. In the undergrad program when I was assigned to prepare my portfolio, I followed the outline carefully, as I had never done this before and wanted to do it correctly. While I was putting the items together and making it look like something one might want to view, I found myself taking a few hours reflecting on what I was creating out of what I had done. And that was before I knew about Yancey or reflection! The outcome was delightful as I enjoyed the stroll through my work as much as the task of preparing it for presentation to my advisors. The short piece I was required to write as the portfolios companion piece was easy and very upbeat, so my portfolio conference was a positive, enjoyable experience. Also, the review of my work proved beneficial to me for the balance of the semester.

Getting back to the beginning or First Wave, Paul Diederich was really an impressive pioneer. The problem throughout all three waves seems to be money. That, as in many other aspects of life, underlies the efforts made by so many, including the model by Peter Elbow and Belanoff (now defunct)—despite the improvements that could be made, and the far reach they would bear, if it is not cheap enough, it cannot be used. Nonetheless, all the ideas—good or bad—have led to improvements that are implemented here today. 

Yancey's "Writing Assessment in the Early Twenty-First Century" and Bean's "Using Rubrics to Develop Grading Criteria"

I really enjoyed Yancey’s piece, “Writing Assessment in the Early Twenty-First Century.” It seems that I find her voice very easy to listen to as she explains the particulars of assessing a student’s writing. The idea of becoming both hero and villain when in this position creates an amusing, and accurate visual, at least for me. Her concern over how this challenge can be both met and overcome is very refreshing as was the reminder about both the importance and use of reflection in writing.

The brief, yet concise, history of the “three waves” of writing assessment helped clarify the various changes along the way, including rubrics and portfolios which have been integrated smoothly, and proven advantageous additions. I also enjoyed the information on “writing-across-the-curriculum” or WAC programs (mainly because my knowledge of such programs is limited). I felt the proposal to include digital technologies in writing as far back as 2008 in their program is evidence of their revision process as well as of healthy progress.

The model I found most impressive was the one at University of Kentucky—this one piqued my interest. The five outcomes they used were: ethos, structure, analysis, evidence and conventions. These were “…designed into a four-point analytic scoring guide that was used to see how students fared on each of the five criteria”(177) based on various scales of development. The findings were positive, and produced target areas to further develop such as critical thinking skills. Overall, this seemed a very successful program.

Once again, the global and local issues were addressed, and the VSA exam, that a student might be paid to take, seems a waste of time for student development as well as aiding in curricula. Yancey’s references to reflection are sadly true—one needs TIME to effectively utilize reflection in their writing process. I know I often wish I had that time to truly think about what I wanted to say instead of having to write it all down in such a flurry.

John C. Bean’s “In Using Rubrics to Develop and Apply Grading Criteria” was a very simple breakdown of several types of Rubrics, including examples of the different types. I never realized the sea of contention over grading students writing fairly, and the numerous methods tried by teachers over the years. Probably because I was the student and usually felt comfortable with whatever was written on my papers, I never gave it much thought. Of course, now that I am thinking about being the teacher, I am giving it a great deal of thought, so I find all of this very beneficial information.

The history, Diederich’ research and its effect on group assessments of writing was very interesting, especially because it also enabled individuals to grade papers more fairly. The overview of rubrics was quite helpful to me as I only was introduced to them when my younger children would bring them home from school. I tried to grasp them fully, and often wondered if I was getting them right. When I returned to school myself, there they were again, and I hoped I was fulfilling all the areas as was expected.

Reading about them like this was very simplified so I liked it. The generic rubric I am more familiar with but have seen the Task-Specific one on occasion. Now that I understand how this can simplify things for the teacher as they grade, they seem less ominous. I think the task-specific ones can be wonderful as long as they aren’t overwhelming for the student. Between both essays, I came away with a renewed interest in portfolios, which I find helpful (though I like to have enough time to prepare one and to write my reflection of this process) and a new interest in Rubrics, as they appear to be a very helpful tool for both teachers (for grading) and students to incorporate into their writing process. At last, using a Rubric seems less complicated then solving a Rubik’s cube!

Debbie's Vignette Rough Draft

Here is a rough draft of my vignette; I am still testing out the two "tools" I want to use, so will talk with you guys as we peer review in class. I guess I need some feedback before I go plunging ahead with something and hate it--will explain my concerns and hopefully, everyone's input will help me and my game plan! It is a tiny bit longer then the original time of 3:45, but I am trying to keep it under 5:00 maximum, with light music (perhaps?) to play behind the "storyteller"--let me know what you think in class! Oh, and Devon, your Draft #2 Is wonderful!! And Laura, yours is absolutely amazing!!!

       Once upon a time, there was a little girl who was sweet, and sunny, and very shy. She was sensitive to people’s feelings, and might cry when she listened to music, or felt someone’s sadness, or even their joy! It seemed her emotions would overwhelm her at times. She loved to sing to her dolls and make up wonderful stories for them, usually when she thought no one was looking. One special day, her Mom took her to dance school and everyone thought she would surely be afraid to dance onstage. But this little girl fell in love with ballet! And with the energy of the theatre. Here was a wonderful place to express all those emotions which nobody understood she was feeling.

When she got to perform on the big stage, she was mesmerized by the lights, the music, and the audience—all so alive and exciting. It was the first time she felt the “magic” and whenever she performed, there it was, again and again. The music, the lights, the curtains, and—most of all--the energy of the audience, waiting to be entertained. It was all part of an incomparable magic and she was part of it too! She loved to be performing and the only thing she liked as much, was writing it all down when she got back home, as fast as her emotions poured out on the page, so that she could remember the feelings of these beautiful moments. And it would come to life again, each time she read those special pages.

            As this little girl grows up, she plans to study and perform as long as she possibly can. Her dream? To earn a dual degree in Theatre and English—her two favorites—but to perform as long as she can create that stage “magic.” And earn a living doing it! After that, she would complete any other degrees (if needed), and go forth with her plan of teaching one—or both—of her two favorites.  But, the day comes, sooner than planned, to put those dreams on a shelf to make room—and enough time—for other things.

The other things? “Grown-up things” like marriage and babies that bring a new, different kind of magic. Sometimes it is so very wonderful, and other times, quite hard. But dance is still her old, reliable “cure”, there to help release some energy—good or bad—and, of course, writing it all down, as fast as her emotions pour out on the page—so she can always remember and make sense of all these different new experiences. It is also her special way to thank God for the beauty, the laughter, the joy of her babies, the daily challenges, and even the struggles.

            Finally one day, that same little girl—very grown up with almost grown-up children, returns to school to earn her degree. Dance is still her wonderful release, and she loves those courses, but knows she must decide on her major. It has to be something she loves, and wants to do for the rest of her life. A passion she can share with students, like the shows she did for years with the students at her children’s schools! Music is a thought, but she knows that Theatre and English—her soul-mates—have to be the choice. English means writing and theatre has movement---this will be the perfect fit! But oh my—so much work! Sometimes not enough time to write anything down, as fast as any emotions might pour out on the page--except each new writing assignment...

            BUT, that is when a great new magic appears. It flows from her fingers, sometimes writing on a pad, other times as she types on the computer. The words—her words—are painting a picture. Much the same as painting scenery for a production, her words are making magic by coming to life in front of her eyes! The emotions she feels are as heightened as playing a difficult role or performing in her favorite ballet—the excitement and energy are unmatched as she stares at this new phenomenon. Has this magic always been there? Or did she just forget that she can do this!

The words are real. They are life, telling a story and reaching people. Simply discovered through an assignment, and then another--yet they are her words speaking clearly. Words of rage or sorrow; words of beauty and joy. But words creating something wonderful for someone else to read and embrace. A different audience yes, but one that will laugh or cry and feel exhilarated or cleansed by the magic she wrote on the page. And she had always held this magic, but never really believed in it until she was moved by reading her own words. Words she wrote as fast as she could, so all the emotions in her heart and head would be on the page, now to share with others.

Oh, in case you hadn’t guessed, the little girl who loved to sing and dance was me. And the magic did appear as I was writing an assignment, late at night, hunched over the computer with a cold cup of tea on the desk. I embraced that moment then, and still do every time it happens…

"Teaching Composition in the Multilingual World" and "Tutoring ESl Students: Issues and Options"

While reading Paul Kei Matsuda’s essay, “Teaching Composition in the Multilingual World”, I felt a sense of his pride in the great strides made by this specialized area of language within the larger, well-established field of composition studies. The history he provided of second-language learning was quite interesting for me as my knowledge of this field is somewhat limited. I had no idea that these programs were started after WWII, meaning they were in full swing by the time I was in elementary school. His breakdown of the various labels given this class, and its students, made me think about the potential to stigmatize such a department. I also thought about how incredibly difficult it must be to learn how to write when you are only learning how to speak a new language! When I have tried (repeatedly) to become fluent in Italian, simply to be able to speak freely to all the lovely friends my brother brings us to visit when we are with him in Firenze, try as I might, the best I can do is understand their conversations better (until they get excited) and utter a few practiced responses. My comprehension is better but my "speaking freely" remains problematic. More importantly, I can barely write a simple note (thank you or greetings) without carefully checking ALL my notes, and then pray that they can understand my message. The idea of writing an entire essay in a language other than my own is rather terrifying! Which brings me to my other observation about the author; there is a strong suggestion that monolingual Americans (such as myself) will soon need to broaden our linguistic skills as WE will be the minority in our globalized world. As a result of this globalization, including the influx of so many international students in the USA, Mastuda states the following: “The question is no longer limited to how to prepare students from around the world to write like traditional students from North America; it is time to start thinking more seriously about how to prepare monolingual students to write like the rest of the world” (50). He makes an excellent point, but I could not help but notice a feeling of bias towards the traditional American student and their natural ability to write, with ease, in their native language. In truth, that ability is no different than any student of a given culture’s ability to excel when writing in their native tongue, and, as I mentioned, it is difficult for most anyone to master a second language. I do agree that American students will have to step up their single-language limitations and become more comfortable with multi-lingual exploration, as these ESL students presently do, in order to keep up in today’s globalized world.

“Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options” by Muriel Harris and Tony Silva was a delightful and informative piece dealing with the same topic. I very much enjoyed the explanations on tutors’ concerns and where they must draw the line when they help their ESL students with writing projects. Often, we all have to stop ourselves from “fixing” everything when helping our friends or children with a paper. The temptation to correct rather than point out problem areas is a strong one, but must be ignored if we are to help the student develop their writing and revision skills. I was happy to see their suggestion about praising the strong parts of a paper first; it reminded me of our other readings which also discuss revision approaches and teacher’s comments.  The explanation of global vs. local errors was very helpful information as it clarified that area of writing concerns (I wouldn’t have been very sure which was which…). “Rules” are deemed wise and suggested to serve as a guideline—a needed replacement--for the intuition of native speakers. Teachers are expected to “tell” students what they need to do in many cultures, so the authors’ suggestion for tutors is to lay out a plan (for students) of areas that the tutor can help with, and then explain how students can utilize those recommendations. Most important is the suggestion for tutors to tell students that: “…it is unrealistic for them to expect to be able to write like native speakers of English…” (531). When writing in a second language, one’s accent will peek through, as it does in speech. These authors also explain it is more helpful to work with students from their earliest drafts and to then remember to deal with one problem at a time. The list of common ESL errors is very useful for anyone trying to help a fellow student or proofread their own work, as well as a must-have for ESL tutors. Idiomatic expressions are evidently a well-liked form of language, particularly to second-language learners, and encouraged as a tool. However, proofreading and reading aloud--better left for the tutors’ than the ESL students; their accent will always come through in their writing but that is a reality to be embraced, not discarded. I really enjoyed this paper and felt the authors’ strong sense of commitment to their project and its continued success.

Writers, Revising, and Then, More Revising

                Nancy Sommers 1981 essay, “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers”, though somewhat dated, is a very thorough descriptor of revision for all writers. The principles are the same as current thinking as are the student responses. I especially liked her references to writing as being modeled on speech (the art of rhetoric?) and I agree wholeheartedly that revision is often viewed as a separate part of the writing process—almost an afterthought. However, because writing was originally an art prepared for oratorical use, where one could not reverse their words once uttered, revision needed to occur before the words were spoken---within the composition. As Sommers states: “What is impossible in speech is revision…” (379). Writers, can enjoy the luxury of this process until their project sounds as they imagined and expresses what their intent demands.

            The reduction of revision as a major part of the writing process is, evidently, a common mistake made by many students. To me, the idea is ludicrous as I revise almost anything I write—including emails and greeting cards—until I get the writing to honestly reflect what I hoped to say. Most pieces are always in revision until they must be handed in or submitted.  Sadly, even supposedly finished pieces are victims of my harsh revision (or at least some minor “tweaking”). I am just eternally grateful for Microsoft Word and computers…

From a case study done at Boston University, Sommers’ provides samples of student definitions of revising. Though many of my fellow students share those opinions, an equal amount know the importance of working through their entire piece to improve clarity, organization, and argumentation. Sommers believes that only through revision can one find the true argument. I personally agree as this has proven true on several occasions when, after hours of research and conflicting thoughts, I have grown away from my main point. But, as one revises and cleans up the ball of confusion (Temptations) they have created, the original argument—in all its conviction--is rediscovered and hopefully, proven. If not entirely, more revision usually solves the problem. Sommers’ experienced writers echo this philosophy, and some other ones far more advanced then I employ, but her student writers are not using this process in the way it is needed. Of course, her student writers are probably my age, considering when this study took place, so perhaps they have learned to utilize the benefits of revision by now…

Donald Murray's "Teach the Motivating Force of Revision" follows the same theme. He suggests that teachers write along with students which seems to make sense and serves as a model for the students to follow. I like his mentality for students to find new meanings and make discoveries in their writing. I am uncertain, that all students are willing to find those meanings but I applaud his ideas. The concept of "internal revision" I especially like--I think I do a lot of that myself and it is a benefit for students to utilize in much the same way as Sommers' advice! His main point that struck home with me was that teachers should be teaching revision as part of the writing process. If students believe something is a minor afterthought they will treat it that way. Now, because I had read the other essay before I checked the revised reading list, I will post some thoughts I had on that one too.

 The voices behind “Teacher-Writers: Then, Now, and Next” focus on the teacher as writer and how this practice enhances the teacher-student relationship. This current essay reviews the development of the teacher-writer from the early phases, through the research period, and today with teachers as writers advocating intellectualism and high pressure issues. At its inception in the 1970’s and 80’s, the idea was to promote teachers as writers to promote pedagogy and both encourage and pioneer the writing workshop. Teachers were expected to ‘walk the talk’ (178) and be on the same page (no pun intended) as their students. As time moved on, teachers became researchers during the 1990’s and 2000’s. Today—advocacy, as teachers fight and write for a specific cause and create a strong voice for activism and resistance.

Teacher-writers situate themselves among other same-minded individuals where all study and engage in similar groups where the emphasis is on inquiry, agency and advocacy of this, and other, processes. This involvement supports the life of teacher as writer, and research does show a change in perspectives that form teaching practices. This makes sense as teachers are essentially becoming the “student” as writer-researcher’s, taking them back to their earlier days of writing. As teacher-writers, they too seek approval, face deadlines, and are rewarded by the success of a finished product. But where is it all going?

In today’s society, teachers are often being put down, which makes this action all the more purposeful. Teachers as spokespersons pose an important step towards recognition of the benefits of writing. The need for a strong voice is answered with teacher-advocates and the “power of the pen” has been proven superior to that of the sword repeatedly. Teacher-writers can promote writing as a valuable skill, a necessary tool, and a catharsis using their informed voice.

The final project! I have been throwing my idea around all week as it seems to be changing before my eyes. But at least I know what I want to use! I love Martha's Voki; I already played with that and she will introduce (at the very least) my piece. I also want to use Animoto for the body. My hope is to use Voki to begin AND then shift into Animoto  to keep it moving.Also, I love Laura's idea of Writing Matters--it is perfect!

Very Confused by Digital Tools...

As I revisited all of the digital tools which appeared so inviting at first glance (with the exception of the one which would not open..) I am now more confused than when I started! The other day I checked out several of these sites, and signed up for a couple of them. Today I found some other ones I really liked and signed up for those too. Unfortunately, all of this has distanced me further from what I would like to do for my contribution to our final project! I was intrigued by Chatterpix, and Online Image Editor gave me some ideas as well. The other idea involves Pic Monkey and Haiku Deck but those may be a bit of a stretch. My hope was to reenact the actual "Aha" moment, with (perhaps) an emphasis using sound and animation. In short, bring it to life and maybe have a few bars of background music; make the point memorable and lend a laugh too. I will try and iron out exactly where I want to go during the upcoming week (I hope) and be able to give you all a clearer picture of what I have in mind. These are all quite amazing tools but as I am unfamiliar with their use, they are also intimidating to this older student.

Three Exceptional Pieces on Writing Comments for Students

John C. Bean’s “Writing Comments on Student Papers” is a very straightforward piece which addresses the immeasurable importance of sensitivity and constructive criticism when in the position of “paper­-grader.” This positive reinforcement of students can only serve as a tool for improved skills as well as incentive for success. I especially enjoyed the section on “mitigated criticism” which is explained quite thoroughly. The combination of both positive and negative elements, presented in an encouraging yet succinct manner, seems a very honest and productive method for this task. Students are praised for their strong choices while being reminded of their weaker areas that need attention. The approach clarifies, for the student, where revision is needed while praising the sections that exhibit strength. I also was impressed by the concept of teacher as coach (instruct and encourage) and later judge.

The strategy for teachers ­­placing the comments on a later draft as opposed to each rough copy ­­makes sense as does the hope this will prompt revision. The list of possible marginal comments, and sample paragraphs included, I found very helpful. The author runs workshops on this process of grading/ commenting on student writing, so these examples are worthwhile tools. It does appear that grammar truly is considered far less important than one would think when it is referred to as a “lower-­order concern.” Because grammar does seem to be a recurring situation in many cases. “student-driven” corrections demanded by teachers is completely acceptable. Also, the refusal to grade papers until said student has cleaned up these errors, is fully within the scope of reason. Stylistic problems, however, are not so easily dismissed.

Wordiness is another problem, and one I can relate to far too easily. I generally have to eliminate a great deal of my original writing to create anything free of excessive language. Choppy sentences are hard for readers to follow and need to be avoided--­­students have to try and smooth their writing for their intended audience. The review of all these marvelous skills, organized and clarified by the author, is an invaluable reference I may turn to ­­hopefully ­­one day as I grade papers. I rather enjoyed this useful and informative essay.

“Response to Writing” written by Richard Beach and John Friedrich, is a very similar piece which also supplies vast amounts of research, innovative methods, and outcomes. A somewhat older work geared towards a larger range of students, this essay is filled with statistics from various research projects on the same topic. These studies found that:”...the nature and quality of the teacher’s feedback during the composing process is critical to whether students revise” (223). This research shows how essential it is for students to understand a teacher’s feedback in order to utilize the recommendations in a positive manner. The revision process can then be a source of substantive change towards a higher quality of writing.

The section on teachers misjudging a student’s writing is reflective of Peter Elbow’s piece and his suggestions to know students as people in an effort to objectively and constructively read their works without bias. Also, the stress in this discussion on knowing one’s audience reminded me of our discussion last week, and Martha’s knowledgeable reply. The techniques for feedback in this study are consistent with the other piece--most teacher’s comments are deemed too vague, inconsistent and just not very helpful. Elbow’s “reader-­based feedback” (226) is referenced as a method of positive reinforcement; I felt that concept is the equivalent of the “Mitigated Criticism” discussed by Bean in the previous essay.

The majority of students:”... prefer comments that explain why something is good or bad about their writing” (226). As for peer review, the point made in regard to student’s effectiveness is quite true; I often am uncertain how much is proper to say when in this position. Training for this task would probably be productive as well. I found the trend towards teacher conferences to discuss writing issues more personal and a wise choice as well as the online conferencing tools. In retrospect, both essays offered many excellent processes that have been proven effective as per research. Hopefully one day soon I will find myself in a position to utilize my new-found knowledge!

The final essay: ”One Approach to Guiding Peer Response” by Kim Jaxon, is an answer to my suggestion for student training for this task! The author is quite thorough with her instructions for successful peer responses, and the process makes a lot of sense.  I especially liked the clarity of this author and her inclusion of both questions and an example feedback statement. The only drawback to this process is that it involves a great deal of extra writing for both parties.

Assuming that all students in the class have the same assignment, both the initial essay (with its accompanying research) and the requirements listed for a successful peer review would be the first matter of business. Then, before submission, carefully writing a memo for the teacher as well as peer reviewer, AND proofreading the original assignment, both memos and requirements for the student reviewer. Wow! That is thorough but requires a lot more preparation time. It does sounds wonderful but only if all class members share this enthusiasm, and will treat the peer review with sensitivity and respect. If so, I think it’s a terrific process to implement in all writing classes.

"Bi, Butch, and Bar Dyke" and Peter Elbow's "Voice in Writing"

Three women, three feminists, three professors of writing--with non-traditional sexual preferences, collectively represent several minorities. These very different individuals, with their own unique voices, all classify themselves as the “other” and believe that society has placed them in this category. I found the Bi, Butch, and the Bar Dyke all very interesting, opinionated women despite the article being somewhat dated. Luckily, many of their issues have moved forward to a better place of societal acceptance since this paper’s September 2000 publication.

The opening/introduction seemed intimidating, but the individual essays were quite reader-friendly (thankfully as I am often reading at the end of my brain capacity after a very long day). I feel that many of the issues were complicated by their personal concern—and defense of—their sexuality, and how it should or could affect their writing. Again, this may have been the social atmosphere—particularly within writing communities, as evidenced by student responses to these women “coming out” publicly to them. Much has changed in the spirit of acceptance in the last decade or so. 

The essay I thought would be the most challenging, Butch, had a rather fascinating perspective. My sister-in-law would identify with this category proudly and the chronological fit is a match as well. In retrospect, these opinions hold a lot of truth, and are historically accurate to the best of my recollection. The butch/ femme classification was explained simply as were the differences in identities. Mostly, I enjoyed her writing style—her voice—above the other two; perhaps because of the similarity to someone I knew.

The first author—Bi—was on point about the tendency of communal voices blurring the lines which individuals and/ or minorities believe differentiate them from the outsider. The reason? Because people are essentially the same; we are all human regardless of personal preferences. Societal labels should never restrict what comes from within.

“The tension, the uncertain space writing teacher and students find between the familiar ‘real me’ voice and an emerging public voice should not necessarily be resolved with codified positions; rather the tension should be a space to work from…” (Marinara, 72-73).

Bisexuality caused this woman many problems with identity and a political sense of self; one can only hope this friction created a solid base for her to educate students, motivate writing and become comfortable in her own identity. Which leads to the final essay, Bar Dyke, and her laundry list of major league personal problems. This woman had come a long way to overcome the difficulties she was handed, which made them part of her person—her voice. However, many of her choices were the result of a difficult past, but in no way related to her sexuality. Also, the dossier she submitted contained items—interesting to her—but inappropriate and unnecessary for an evaluation.

This paper was interesting and somewhat defined the place of "other" in writing as both writer and subject; mostly I enjoyed listening to the three different voices. On that note, Peter Elbow’s discussion of voice was, of course, amazing, informative, and fascinating. I enjoyed and agreed with his arguments for personal voice, reading aloud to hear one’s voice, and the practice of using voice to persuade as stated by both the sophists and one of my favorites, Aristotle. I also strongly agreed with his suggestions to: “…separate language and thinking from the author (especially if it’s famous or respected author) and to see multiple and even contrary interpretations of a text…” (182).

He had wonderful arguments for both listening to voice and writing objectively, thus avoiding recognition or the creation of bias. The struggle to accomplish both creates the tension—the conflict--- which makes writing alive—exciting as opposed to static and mediocre. Naturally I enjoyed his references to types of voice and style of reading; that is how theatre brings the words to life and puts them on their feet.  Overall, he states it simply when he says: “We don’t have to read or write the same way all the time” (183). 

Following Peter Elbow’s advice, I have been giving thought to our personal vignettes. I would like to create something that reflects our theme—the “aha” moment of writing while, at the same time, expresses the connection of English to its soul-mate--Theatre. Because as we grow, there are different moments of great achievement, I will try to create mini-scenes to capture these with both sensitivity and humor. That is all I have presently but I think I am on to something; let’s hope it blossoms as I move forward!

Lastly, the DigiWriMo sounds terrific, I’m getting excited about all of these hi-tech computer things---this is fun! But if I need help, hope you guys don’t mind!

Our Final Project Together

As I have been reading and commenting on these articles, I have also been trying to get a handle on our project. I think I am very interested in the idea of using music or some type of pop culture to solidify a lesson and I think the anti-theory of teaching a process is very exciting. Unfortunately, the more ideas we come up with, the further away from a book about writing we grow, and I had been quite delighted at the prospect of that. Still, all these ideas sound wonderful so I am ready for whatever we all agree on, and cannot wait to get started, once we get it ironed out! Hopefully we can get a clearer idea of our design tomorrow night and begin moving forward together!

Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Writing by Peter Elbow and Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar by Patrick Hartwell

My first response to Peter Elbow’s “Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Writing” was a five star rating and the words Best Paper Yet next to its title! This piece was simple, direct and spoke to the reader about something that he--the author--finds troublesome. The humanity of this man shines through and speaks volumes as he discusses the unreliability of ranking or grading a student’s work—his disdain is well-grounded and supported by his findings and various teaching experiences. Elbow’s straightforward approach to this sensitive topic is refreshing as well as his definition of evaluation: “Evaluation means looking hard and thoughtfully at a piece of writing in order to make distinctions as to the quality of different features or dimensions.” (191). He believes, and I wholeheartedly agree, that by ranking, those delightful distinctions, which make every piece of writing unique, become only a number, and one that might decide a student’s future. I was intrigued by his discussion of Evergreen State College where he taught for nine years in an environment free of ranking; the written evaluations fostered a successful teacher-student experience and was evidently a large influence on Elbow. The portfolio system he discusses sounds promising as does the grid but I felt his “added categories” evidence his generous nature as it allowed students a greater opportunity to excel and find greater confidence in their other skills. My favorite section was on “liking.” The idea of liking one’s own writing and being comfortable enough to say so is so basic and yet quite powerful. Once we take ownership it becomes our responsibility to improve on the initial work without losing that important idea our uncut version expresses. Every writing task should and usually does take on that identity, but some are always more critical than others. The desire to keep working on each piece one writes is a huge step towards writing maturity. About his interaction with students, Elbow emphasizes an obvious but extremely relevant point; if you begin to know and understand your students as people it becomes easier to “like” their writing. As parents we read our children’s work and positively influence their writing; in much the same way, Elbow recommends getting to know students through non-graded free writing and reciprocate through a letter to them, constructed on a more personal level. This sharing of self creates an atmosphere of openness and enables the students to feel confident in their self-expression while allowing the teacher the necessary insight as to why they write as they do. I really enjoyed the entire paper, particularly his astute ideas about taking that extra step with students in an effort to like their writing better and thus, make the teacher’s job less tedious.
Patrick Hartwell’s “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar” clearly defines his opinion on what he stolidly believes--the idea of teaching “grammar” to aid a student’s ability to write well is both ridiculous and unnecessary. I agree to a point, that these types of classes do not belong in a university, however, students need to have been taught the basics well enough to be able to write effectively and get their point across clearly, concisely, and with the correct mechanics of punctuation, sentence structure, and so on. Because language is ever-changing, as illustrated by Hartwell’s expansion of grammar from three to five meanings, forcing students to always be up on these nuances seems counter-productive when they are trying to master the ability to write well and prove their thesis on any given point. An excellent proficiency in grammar, though helpful on other levels, unfortunately, cannot provide those skills. But, in grammar’s defense, a working knowledge of its specifics can make the writing experience much less threatening, and proofreading a far less tedious task. In truth, I enjoyed this essay and lean more towards Hartwell’s camp on the grammar topic, despite my naïve impression
 it should be ingrained by the time a student reaches the college level!

A Reflection of Rhetoric

Nancy Sommers’ essay “Responding to Student Writing” provides a thoughtful, carefully devised process for improving a controversial and problematic area for many teachers--writing comments on student’s papers. Her 1982 study focuses on the importance of these comments as a tool for the student-writer to “engage with the issue they are writing about” (154). By following the studies recommendations, skills of reviewing and revising can become a learned practice for each student. Sommers states, “Written comments need to be an extension of the teachers voice--an extension of the teacher as reader” (155). This ability to be the reader is an important one for any student’s progress; the teacher’s comments are now that of an audience as well as a guide. “On Reflection” is an interesting—though lengthy—observation of a practice which, perhaps, should be infused in each student’s writing process. Written in 1998 as the opening chapter to Kathleen Yancey’s book Reflections in the Writing Classroom, the essay discusses various research methods employed to understand how students write. Pioneers of this movement, initially Sondra Perl and later, Linda Flowers and Joseph Harris, used extremely close analysis to document this process; however, this boom was followed by a period of vast disinterest. Yancey’s study is a rebirth designed for students to become “agents of their own learning” (5). Reflection carries multiple interpretations but the focus for Yancey is its importance to the composing part of the writing process. She feels it must be tapped to provide a clear idea of what one wants to express, revisited to produce an articulation of that truth, and lastly, used as a reflection through revision of the composition. Yancey’s beliefs are supported by theorists such as Vygotsky, Dewey, and Piaget, who find reflection an invaluable tool. Philosopher Donald Schon’s perspective and its relativity to her entire project sums it up neatly, “reflection is rhetorical” (12). That simple statement clarifies the concept of Yancey’s project. Mastery of rhetoric is necessary for any writing, speaking or persuasion to be effective, as noted by Aristotle back in about 335 BCE, in his Art of Rhetoric. This was about a century after the Golden Age of Greece and height of Athenian theatre, yet this student of Plato documented the necessity of ethos, logos and pathos for a mastery of persuasion. His other essential writing tool, The Poetics, clarifies the field of “poetry” into different genres—epic, tragedy, comedy and dithyramb. The precedents he set, and his keen sense of these principles serve as the base for both theatre criticism and persuasive writing today. He states, in The Poetics:”…begin in the natural way, with basic principles” (Worthen, 153). That sounds like a form of reflection and should be employed each time one takes pen to paper. One’s rhetoric can then be used for either good or evil purposes as this reflection is put on paper and eventually relayed to its audience. The idea of teaching students to write and the confusion as to how this is achieved can also be answered by Aristotle. He explains the use of composing—in its various mediums—as part of each genre’s collective imitative processes. I have never questioned how I learned to write, but in reflecting on this remarkable concept, I have to agree with his perceptions. Through imitating the writers who inspire and ignite our imagination, we attempt to become as dynamic. This imitation is seen in the other genres Aristotle discusses, particularly in the rhythm, speech, and melody of the “poets” or dramatists, but more importantly, it is observed in most every aspect of one’s existence as we get older and begin to “reflect”. We see that the rhetoric and reflection go around as the circular pattern of life continues. Imitation is a natural human response we all experience from our earliest moments as children, and will unintentionally use throughout life. By following Aristotle’s basic steps-- reflection, imitation, review, and revision, coupled with encouragement, insight, and a teacher-audience for each student-writer, perhaps we can produce confident, competent, and exciting new writers for the next generation to imitate. Works Cited Aristotle. “The Poetics” The Wadsworth Anthology of Drama, 6th ed. Ed. W.B. Worthen. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 156-156. Print.

The questions I would like to pose for discussion involve our personal composing strategies; 1. I would like everyone to try and remember the first important piece you ever wrote. What or who inspired that work? 2. Did you try and model your writing after any specific thing that was important to you, and if so what? When you write now, as adults in an MA program, do you ever refer to that “model” or inspirational piece to get started? 3. Do you use reflection in your own compositions? If so, how do you begin that process? If not, what do you draw on to write? 4. Lastly, in reference to Sommers essay, what types of comments have you received from teachers and were they helpful? For the teachers, any advice for the rest of us who hope to teach one day? On the topic of our class project I am rather excited about the handbook, both paperback and net-based! I believe we can all contribute something substantially useful based on our individual research; I look forward to this adventure with all of you!

Fulkerson’s “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” and Murray's "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product"

            My first impression of this piece: Fulkerson is frustrated with the lack of development and numerous disagreements about teaching composition to students. He observes correctly how the field—relatively new in relation to other genres of English studies—seemed to stop its progress with the advent of the millennium. The reasons for this untimely halt are related to new branches that have entered this field and with their emergence an alteration of the original goals. In 1990 Fulkerson felt optimistic and uplifted by the surge of advances in this “field” of study. “Good Writing” was considered language; ”Rhetorically effective for audience and situation.” The areas of conflict were expected—assignments, grading, readings, and teacher response but the goal was shared by all involved; the means to success were simply in transition.

            Fulkerson blames the addition of CCS—critical/ cultural studies—for creating new problems for the teacher. He also feels expressionism is taking over and finds the result is causing the rhetorical approach to split into three parts. By comparing two volumes on the subject, one published in 1980 at a highpoint of this trend and the other in 2001 when it is seemingly in conflict, he emphasizes the addition of too many new areas which create more confusion to this fairly new concept of teaching. It seems the simplicity of being able to write freely--within a loose framework--is complicated with each new addition to this writing landscape; the time factor is simply too rapid for these new ideas to become accepted norms. He poses four questions which represent a solid base on which to “erect a course” and it is a rather intriguing grid for any willing party to attempt to complete—he does not. I agree that cultural studies is the forerunner throughout the field with the feminist approach trailing close behind. And, of course, postcolonial gets an honorable mention as well. These approaches were not as commonly employed in a classroom setting in 1980 or before but are now considered a standard. I can only guess that in 2001 when Fulkerson was researching, revisiting, and writing about the rhetorical movement’s progress, this transition within the field was taking a firm hold.

            One key point of any writing is interpretation and how each new group of student-writers approach any or all topics assigned or suggested. Many topics are far afield of what we may consider “English” but in order to confidently interpret and/ or analyze, one needs to be capable of expressing their thoughts. Often, a juxtaposition or argument to emphasize and clarify one’s position can be the deciding factor for their target audience. I can, however, see why Fulkerson feels CCS courses work against the idea of teaching college-level writing. He puts it succinctly: “Reading, analyzing, and discussing the texts upon which the course rests are unlikely to leave room for any actual teaching of writing.” This is seemingly an unavoidable evil in a classroom setting. People usually learn to write by wanting to express some belief, ideal, or point of contention in their own way. Much of anyone’s writing is a form of “modeling” because, in truth, as children we wrote simply because we wanted to; it was new and we could use our own voice in diaries, journals, letters, and poems. All of that personal writing was ours and written for the sense of pleasure, and accomplishment it provided. In a classroom, it is more prudent to have a basic game plan or standard set by the teacher so everyone knows what is expected—writing must conform to certain limits (length, deadlines, framework) but not a repression of creativity or imagination. Fulkerson mentions the possibility of indoctrination which can be problematic in some situations. Teachers as well as students will have their opinions and should feel free to share; discretion, good judgment and respect must always be upheld on both sides of the learning process so as not to inhibit anyone’s creative flow.          

Being such a theatre enthusiast, I especially liked his section on the great Socratean writing tradition as I feel that has always been my personal impetus to write. “Knowing thyself” is often the result of writing down the turmoil I cannot yet voice. Once on paper, I can both find my voice and listen to others more sincerely. As Fulkerson admits, his essay is composed in the tradition of 1970’s composition which he calls” procedural rhetoric.” I too tend to write in a similar fashion, unintentionally trying to honor the classical issues: pathos, ethos, and logos. His reference to the WPA statement reinforces my naivety on the numerous changes that have taken place in the art of teaching writing; the thesis statement was never such a focal point in my earlier years as a student (probably pre-WPA). Writing for an audience was always understood, even as a fledgling student-writer. The need for argumentation makes sense as only through argument can conflict be resolved, leading to the desired denouement; conflicts create tension and are of interest---problems and solutions are the stuff of life and what we love to write-(and read)-about. Fulkerson also discusses a genre approach which utilizes a modernized version of classical Greek stasis theory; this seems rather limiting. After following all his points, both the benefits and deficits of this genre, he states, “The pedagogy is essentially the classical one of imitation.”  

This brings us back to how we began to write as young students, and how Aristotle set down the template in his Poetics. Fulkerson admits there is an internal controversy over the goal of teaching writing in college and what its intended outcomes should be.  His analysis seems quite thorough and his passion very real. The unification of the 1980’s seems disrupted as new ideas become apparent and vital; but that actually creates more material and conflicts to write about.

In Donald M. Murray’s “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product” many of the very ideals Fulkerson promotes are clearly exposed in their infancy. Written in 1972 (when I was in seventh grade) this was an open, encouraging approach to writing which seems very familiar to me. Many of these principles were employed by my teachers in seventh through eighth grade  and were visited again as a high-school senior in accelerated English (probably the forerunner to AP courses). Although we did not try peer review, we did work in small groups and were required to keep a daily journal. Finding our own subject was alowed for certain projects, and we were free to create at our own pace as long as the finished product was ready by the deadline (Implication No. 7). There were rules to follow to a certain extent, but if the product was done well,  thought through, and geared to a target auudience, it was acceptable and graded accordingly. This stimulated, for me, a desire to write and express myself—it was a great motivator. And Murray was completely correct in saying that, “what works one time may not another”(Implication No. 10). His assertion that these practices could be uccessfully incorporated into an English  class  are proven correct and they truly did create an environment of  viewing writing as a process—much like any other creative journey.                      

Debbie's Very First Blogpost (I hope)

I am hoping I just created a blog for class; being as this is an entirely new process for me, I do hope I did this correctly?! Sigh...