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!