Tasker & Holt-Underwood: Here it is!

Here is finally the bloodshed and carnage that Tony longed for in the debate of Elbow and Bartholomae. It is not surprising that, in the world of feminist acadame, there would be differing opinions, for the arguments that have encompassed the male-dominated theories of composition and rhetoric have fizzled down over the centuries. Feminist rhetoric, however, has only been in discussion in the academic world, according to the article, for the last forty years, and most of the headway (and argumentation) has been made in the last decade and a half.

This article brings up quite a few discussions, however, and does a good job of representing quite a few points of view, especially about how feminist critique is approached. The first argument is that which Nancy presented in her Lunsford presentation, that women authors (silent or no) should be presented alongside the male: "the task of discovering neglected authors, providing basic research on their lives and theories" (54). 

The second argument, which came against feminist authors, was the inability of feminist authors to stay objective. My response to this accusation is first, that most scholars are passionate about their research and objectivity does not come naturally. Second, the article says that feminist authors have had difficulty remaining objective, too, but there has been objective research done in the field. Also, the paucity of female rhetoric from times past seems to require a bit of interpretation on the part of the scholars (which is where lack of text as well as text is significant in constructing the past), but, again, this is not all that unusual: "like much humanistic research, feminist methods are highly interpretive, difficult to identify, and often only implied" (57).

A third argument, made by Patricia A. Sullivan, is that women "should move toward a qualitative" model of research, possibly because of the highly interpretive mode of research that must be done in fields such as feminism, but maybe also because of the lack of quantitative evidence. However, there have been areas of study in feminism where authors (like Catherine Hobbs) have been able to recover both qualitative and quantitative support for their claims. In situations where information is limited, I feel that it is certainly wise for a scholar not to restrict herself to one mode of research or explanation. 

Indeed, with so much influx of information in support of feminist rhetoric throughout the millennia, it seems that we may be even closer to achieving "Lunsford's often-quoted call to recognize the 'forms, strategies, and goals' of female rhetoric" (59), though there will continue, I'm sure, to be arguments about how the information feminist research is arrived at (such as the debate between Gale and Glenn, Jarret and Ong, and then the more heated argument between Biesecker and Campbell). 

Brammer & Rees: Lots O' Data

The purpose of this article was to report data on whether or not peer review is useful in composition classes, the teacher perspective vs. the student perspective. The article draws strongly on the idea that Andrea Lunsford subscribed to: collaboration. Whether or not this collaboration is helpful or desirable is the larger question of this article.

Peer reviews have the potential to expand the idea-base and audience-base further, and offer students a prospective different from that of the professor. It can also give weaker writers the opportunity to collaborate with stronger writers. However, as the article says, "institutionalized educational collaboration in whatever form...is never unproblematical" (72). There are, of course, many ways of experiencing a peer review, and not all experiences are positive. The article explains that one of the least successful methods of peer review is to give students a handout and let the students roll with it on their own. It is also a mistake to allow students to think that editing is the goal of peer review, rather than analysis of ideas and content ("brainstorming" (81)). I can understand why students who might have been exposed to negative versions of the peer review might be less than impressed with it.

Another idea presented in the essay was "building rapport amongst classmates" (81). I agree that students are more likely to trust each other and have faith in the criticism received if the teacher encourages this. This would mean accepting that not all peer review time will be productive. In my own experience, about half of the peer review time has been spent getting to know my classmates and joking around, and the other half doing real work, but I received good feedback on my pieces, and they were analyzed through a personal microscope rather than a institutional one. It is true that people are more likely to ask their friends' advice, or a parent, etc., when getting feedback on a piece, so why not make the composition classroom a base for building community amongst classmates?

I have engaged in several peer reviews, myself, in the past, both successful and failed and I think that something that was not presented in this article that I have learned is that we need to teach students that not all feedback is helpful, and some of it will be repetitive, which brings us back to teaching students to be able to discern between constructive criticism and unconstructive criticism. Villamil and de Guerrero "found that 95%" of comments from the peer review were the same as corrections that they might have also made. This means that, as reviewers, the critical side of the brain is working appropriately most of the time, which opens up a whole new set of tools for potential academic writing. 

I fall on the side of "Yay!" to peer reviews, but I agree that they need to be done appropriately, which is a fine line for a teacher to walk.

Scott Lee & Graff: Well Met

I will start this post by saying that I was so impressed with the amount of research that Scott did for this presentation, and by saying that I am amazed by how much information Scott was able to retain in order to give the presentation. Having said that, pompous patriarch or no, I was equally impressed by Graff's ideas and am excited to get into They Say, I Say, and, perhaps, to delve a little deeper, as Scott did, into the other works by Graff. Again, there was a lot of information to digest, which is why I think Graff merits more research on my part.

As with Bizzell and Bartholomae, there's the idea here of writing within a cultural context, but Graff takes it one step further with the idea of "curriculum as conversation" because this means that academic writing has the potential to be dialogues between academic and cultural communities. I also think that this idea expands to many of Graff's other theories, such as writing as clear communication rather than pompous academic discourse. If communication across cultures and academia is the desire, then "lucidity" is the only way to effectively exchange ideas, given the difference in opinion and background that might arise in the conversations ("all texts are argument"). This idea of "lucidity" also could make complex academic ideas more readily available to beginning students, as well as the public, which is an exciting concept.

Furthermore, Graff encourages this cross-cultural debate when he advocates argument across all lines of communication, and he seems to believe that this argument will allow students to gain a deeper understanding of ideas and text. I agreed with the idea discussed in class that teachers tend to water the classroom down to avoid conflict and debate. This, as opposed to the widely-embraced idea that students are in college to learn to think for themselves, keeps students (as citizens) in the socially correct box where they never feel comfortable expressing what they mean in order to avoid argument. Indeed, argument makes people uncomfortable and it has the tendency to be explosive, but it also has the potential to open minds and new avenues of thinking (which Bizzell would advocate). It is also a very good way to understand your own perspective as well as the perspective of your "enemy" ("You can't believe your argument until you are familiar with your enemy's argument").

I do disagree with "I". I have learned to write papers that do not say "I" or "one's" and still express my side with gusto. I think that "I" is fine in personal blogs, fiction, memoir and journals, but I do not feel that it has a place in essays where a specific argument is being presented. I feel that when a writer says "I" the argument cannot be sold the way that it needs to be. The "I" may be a good way to start a first draft, but--rather than going through the first draft and replacing the "I" with "one's"--it might be more effective to teach students to cite specific sources and present facts blended with opinions in a way that the reader will not know the difference. Rhetoric, in  my opinion, as is all good writing, is supposed to be sneaky. The "I" makes it blatant that the essay is someone's opinion backed by some fact (and, possibly, even lopsided and skewed fact), and audiences are not fooled, and they will be, in my opinion, less likely to buy into what the writer is saying. 

Overall, I was impressed with Graff, and I think that, of all the theorists we have studied so far, he presents the pedagogy closest to the one that I would like to embrace.

Bizzell:Oh I See...

It was very interesting that Scott got bumped and Graff was presented in the same week as Bizzell and Bartholomae, because the three seem to be on different parts of the same ground. I agree that Bizzell seemed to take a lot of ideas from others and bunch them all together, but I did not think this made her an academic copy-cat, so to speak (though who in the academic community could not be accused of borrowing ideas?). She merely took those ideas and created a more well-rounded view of teaching. I think that the problem with a lot of the theories and theorists we have encountered is that there is just too much information to understand everything completely, but I will do my best to break down Shaynee's presentation.

While Shaynee was explaining the inner and outer-directive theories, I could see points of both that were worth identifying with, though they did, indeed, have very different ways of approaching language learning. To me, however, balance is always best achieved when two separate ideas have the potential to come together. Inner-directed dicourse theory seemed more basic than the outer. It asserts that we have "innate capacities to learn language," while outer-directed discourse theory asserts that "innate capacities have no expression outside discourse communities," meaning that language cannot be learned in isolation. We, as humans, may have the capacity for language, but without a social construct, language cannot be learned. Usually, the social construct is a given, such as family of sorts, but that, according to outer-directed discourse theory, should not be taken for granted. 

The outer-directed discourse theory was easier to identify with after studying so much of Bartholomae. It, however, addressed something that Bartholomae did not, which is that each student has been potentially exposed to different sorts of language and culture, and this exposure can put some students at an advantage over other students. Also, our native discourse community often determines which social discourse community we are exposed to or, indeed, how well we function in different discourse communities. Literature, however, seems to be the great equalizer. What students are exposed to can immerse them in different communities from that which they grew up with.

Another concept that Shaynee presented us with was additive vs. holistic teaching. Additive teaching seems to take advantage of the inner-directed discourse in that it assumes that all students are on the same writing level (or should be) and that writing of students can be quantified by "model essays," and that exposure to this sophisticated writing can make students better writers (like putting a person into a hyperbaric chamber with candy canes and teddy bears and hoping it will make them a better person). It is also not to say that different sorts of writing will not inspire and encourage students to be better writers, which is where the holistic teaching comes in.

I still do not, however, believe that teachers can be trusted not to abuse their position of power when it comes to "incorporating societal values, beliefs, and cultures." We are all human, after all, but it is a nice idea.

As with other ideas, I feel I will take an leave different parts of Bizzell's pedagogy, but it was a nice presentation, and I really dug the radioactive puzzle pieces.

RoboRecopy: the revision and the machine

Peter Kratzke's essay, "Recopying the Revise: Composition in an Old Key" had one main premise surrounded by a few different digressions (which made me wonder if he had fully recopied this essay). This main point was, of course, recopying pages when revising. Speaking as someone who has also had to recopy after computer failure, I know that this works for me. When I send out letters to people, I do the same thing. I recopy mostly because the first copy is so messy, but also because I want to make sure that what I say in the letter (which is less likely to be binned than an email) is what I mean to say.

Another point that Kratzke seemed to want to hit home was the idea that the loss of literacy amongst our youth is not lack of reading so much as lack of absorption and stimulation. The readings that young people do engage in, according to Kratzke, are ephemeral and do not spark any additional ideas in the reader (or feelings), indicating that this lack of "cognitive process" (11) in the readers eliminates at least part of the reason why we read.

Then he side steps into standardized testing, which is proof that schools are not effectively educating students, and he also delves into the negative effects that computers and word processing have had on students. To me, it sounds as though the guide here is at fault, not the guided. Yes, "fun" is the ultimate way to make learning stick to the seemingly impervious student mind, but learning can be enjoyable and effective, and so can reading. He seems to find that there is a problem with reading online. If texts are downloadable and placed in certain programs, a reader can still put notes in the margins (as I did when I read this article). Plus, teaching the kids to engage in behavior that they have always seen as wrong is usually effective, too. As Kratzke puts it, it is "like newly baptized converts" (19), and I could not have said it any better, for that is exactly how I felt when I was first encouraged to write in the margins in a text book.

Another argument Kratzke makes is that students do not care what they write because knowledge is ever-changing, and they feel that their words have no meaning. It is, in my opinion, the job of the educator to teach students to give value to what they have to say. If they do not feel they have worthwhile ideas, then they will not care how they say it, as long as they get their nice, cozy B or C. It is the job of the educator to help students to develop ideas and words that they can get behind.

The only solution that Kratzke seems to offer is the re-copying to make papers better, but I think that the problem of writing goes deeper. I agree that it is good to teach this re-copying method, and there are many ways that it could be done, if the students are encouraged, but--again--they will not care enough to write or re-write anything good unless educators take the first step.

Week Four: Ms. Lunsford

Again, I enjoyed the opportunity to approach Nancy's presentation ideas in a way that both emphasized her point of collaboration and got us, the audience, involved. This idea of collaboration that Lunsford favored was an interesting one. I found myself wondering about teaching students collaboration and contestation. As far as the "real world," those ideas are very sound, and often necessary in order to get things done. There are few offices in the business world where collaboration is not mandatory (rather than just encouraged), and many situations in life where contesting the status quo is desirable.

Where these ideas do not seem like they would be widely embraced is in the academic world. According to Nancy, both she and Lunsford have witnessed places in academia where students (and Lunsford herself) were punished for collaborating, and nothing (I have experienced myself) will lower your grade faster than arguing with a professor about the way that things are done in the classroom, or defying a professor's faulty logic. This particular difference between the academic and non-academic settings reiterate arguments that indicate a student's impediment when transferring from the university to employment.

I did enjoy the idea of memory, especially as it is used as a collaborative tool. It is almost like we are collaborating with a self from a previous time, which is an awesome concept.

Week Four: Christmas Comes Early

Tony's presentation and Murray's demeanor seemed well-linked as far as congeniality and intentions go. In fact, most of the ideas presented seemed well thought out by both parties, but there is one point, in general with which I disagree. Murray's biggest contribution seems to be with the writing process, the whole beginning, middle and end thing, and I agree with the latter two, just not the first. Yes, every project has a beginning, every piece of writing had an origin, but usually the muses do not come down and bless us when it comes to our term papers. The topic idea, then, must be arrived at somehow, either through assignment or through searching (and this idea of the "brain surge" is all that kept Murray's ideas from being completely logical).

I can see a sort of pattern with these composition gurus. They seem to come up with ideas based on their past experiences, which is not unusual or unexpected. The problem is that they seem to think that their way is the best way (also not unusual or unexpected, especially amongst the academic elite). Murray spent a lot of time trying to get others to see the way that he did. Despite the fact that he may have had a process for writing well and finding a voice, writing--as he discovered with his own revisions--is blood, sweat and tears, especially with "pre-university" and early university students.

Another way that Murray was like his peers was in his diagrams of ideas to help the writing process. Because the presentation was the expedited version, I am not certain what the 8 signals was all about, but it seemed to fit in with the other writers we have studied.

I like that Murray worked really closely with the teachers who would have to deliver his ideas to a classroom full of hesitant writers, and I like that he worked so hard throughout his career to make a difference in the academic world.

Tony's delivery of his findings about Murray was the most enjoyable part of the presentation. It was nice that he asked us to get involved in order to prove his point that the writing process cannot be forced or rigid, it must have some boundaries, of course, but not an electric fence with military people in all corners.

Week Four: Orality v. the Printed Word and other stuff

While Ong's concepts were complex, I felt that I could really appreciate where he was coming from. The idea of oral traditions vs the language of the current interfaces was very interesting. Language is able to create ideas and new worlds, and with the invention of written/recorded conversation, those ideas can reach a greater group of people, and create new ideas for people who may not have ever had access to such possibilities. And, as language and the movement of language changes, so do we.

There does, however, seem to be something lost from the older oral traditions. Now everything that might have been passed by word of mouth is trapped, verbatim, in memoirs, biographies and even fiction. It does not have the option of mutation, at least as much as oral tradition (some notable exceptions being movie or song remakes, especially the Evil Dead movies, since they were remade by the same people). Now, with intellectual and media ownership, that mutation is made more difficult. Back in the day, no one really claimed to own a story.

The benefit, as Ong saw it, to modern storytelling tradition is that it has an opportunity to reach a greater number of people, and the clip that Eric showed was a very nice visual explanation of how the past came to be the future.

I also thought that the idea of Interface Metaphor was interesting, and I did a little bit of further research into the concept, and the idea is mainly contextual. We often associate current experience with past experience, and that seems to be the purpose of interface metaphor. The fact that Ong participated so readily in modern technology is very telling of his forward-thinking abilities. He saw the possibility of the new linear thinking becoming even more intertwined, knowing that individual interfaces might be connected to each other through the contextual application through these metaphoric devices, which is also impressive. This computer language is just the next step in the cycle, as Eric explained it (orality --> written word -->printed word --> electronic word).

Week Three: The Rebirth of Elbow

Having Bartholomae as my topic for presentation, I see, is going to be more difficult than I imagined. It would have been better if Elbow was not a sweet, soft-spoken, intelligent man. Plus, his ideas are very sound and more complex than a simple: this is this and that is that.

I think that many people would have been discouraged by the experience that Elbow had in his graduate studies. They would not have turned their negative experience into not only a teaching pedagogy, but a renowned debate and composition theory that is being used by many teachers of composition today (not to mention creative writing teachers in both high school and college settings). 

I, also, liked Tim's presentation of Elbow's pedagogy, especially how it was outlined on the sheet that we were given. It was informative and also visually and aurally sound (no pun intended). What Elbow's primary idea seems to be is sort of microscopic: start big and then work your way into more narrow and focused efforts, such as starting with freewriting, moving through the "Creating and critical" processes, and then working into a final copy. Elbow also believes (and rightly so) that too much self-doubt can eliminate some good ideas ("Believing Game and Doubting Game").

The problem that I see with Elbow's pedagogy is the same as what Bartholomae sees (shocker), that Elbow's methods are more suitable for creative writing than for compositional writing. The expressive genre, in my view, is too subjective. It is, indeed, excellent for helping students find their voices, but it is not appropriate beyond freewriting and brainstorming, though I am contradicted by all of the first-person essays we have read in this class. I suppose that it has been drilled into my head for many years that "I" does not belong in essays or compositional writing. Blog, yes, creative writing, certainly, but not in something that will be published in academic journals or turned into a composition professor for credit. To me, that promotes sloppy, opinionated work. It encourages writers to focus more on themselves and their personal experiences than the text being analyzed.

I can see, again, given Elbow's experiences, why he would promote this kind of writing, but I just feel that it is not the proper way to go. Guess that makes me a snob.

Week Three: The Browser's Kinneavy

This week's lectures set me up for how difficult it will be to get a great deal of information into a 40-minute lecture (or 30, as it may be). Having said that, I think that Klayton's presentation was able to emphasize Kinneavy's contributions to academia in the field of composition and rhetoric. The very presence of Kinneavy in the field allowed generations of students to see composition not as a threat, but as a tool for success in both college and in the future in the students' chosen occupation. 

Bringing Aristotle to the mix and challenging students to see where different aspects of the Rhetorical Triangle might apply to their own arguments was a very important step into what the future might bring for academic argument. According to Klayton, Kinneavy "Institutionalized" comp/rhet, which means that Kinneavy's theories and pedagogy assisted in bringing the field out of the proverbial Dark Ages.

The article by Miller emphasized the importance of A Theory of Discourse in Kinneavy's career. Klayton pointed out the discursive nature of the book, but it seems to me that a theory is meant to be disproved and looked over from every angle. Typically, this analysis is done by another person in the field, but it seems that Kinneavy's background (in the Catholic order, which--no doubt--did a lot of theorizing and re-theorizing itself) might have encouraged him to breakdown and deconstruct his own argument. To me, this speaks to a mind that is not so concerned with being "right," but being analytical.

In Miller's tribute, he quotes Jack Selzer as saying, "that 'this was going to be a great profession to be in if people like Kinneavy were the leaders'" (314). This says, to me, that Kinneavy was both beloved and revered as a teacher and revolutionary of composition, but this aspect of Kinneavy seemed to be missing from the, albeit short, presentation that was offered to us. I am aware of the tendency to canonize people, especially important people, after they die, but Kinneavy seemed to be loved by many people (313), so why was this not spoken about? Perhaps this was part of the talking points that Klayton didn't get to, but it seems to me that this might have been an important part of the history for Kinneavy.

As for the presentation, it certainly set the bar for what others of us will probably have to reach, but I like a challenge, and it gave me some good ideas for my own presentation.