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.