I loved reading all of your blogs this week, and was happy to see that you all recognized Williams' biases. We all have them, of course. After years of teaching writing I'm apt to agree with him (as you might have noticed) that teaching grammar doesn't do a lick of good in terms of helping writers improve their writing. Jess points out that teaching grammar (or usage? or mechanics?) within the context of a student's writing is helpful, and this is so true. But abstract grammar drill and exercises are completely useless unless the student is studying a new language or linguistics.
Williams' other biases stem from his preoccupation with the Composition scholar James Berlin, who he mentions briefly at the beginning of the chapter. Berlin wrote an article about ideologies in the writing classroom and, after blasting current-traditional and then expressive (what Williams emphasizes as "Romantic," although it's rarely referred to by that term) writing pedgogies, Berlin described a social rhetoric (his invention, according to his article) which, of course, trumped the other two. Williams follows Berlin's design and also the flaws in Berlin's argument, treating expressivism as if it has no other place in the curriculum except to use as forced "confession" or "fun" writing. I'd argue that expressive writing provides an opportunity for student writers to write about what they know (as opposed to being "tested" on some other content), and gives them the chance to develop fluency and clarity. Correctness comes later, in the form of the prescribed formats which some of you mentioned. These might include a memo format or a lab report, an MLA formatted research paper or, a brief one page introduction to a portfolio. Once a writer has achieved fluency, they can write in any one of these formats. Simply learning the format, however, (i.e. a five paragraph essay) will not help to enhance their fluency. Many of you mentioned these issues in your blogs, and also added that it should be part of every teacher's objectives (not just "English" teachers) to guide student writers in understanding the formats and conventions of their particular disciplines.
The other great thing about an expressive writing pedagogy is that it's a wonderful tool for writing to learn. We all learn as we write (writing the verb, not writing the noun) and writing through a problem (personal or academic) helps to solve it. We're not sure why it does this, but it does.
Williams (like Berlin) also confuses "expressive" with "personal." The two do not necessarily go together. Kineavy's triangle (the copy I gave you) shows that expressive simply means that the emphasis is on the writer (as opposed to being on the audience or the signal); one example being The Declaration of Independence. We'll talk more about this after we read about some "best practices." Thanks for the great online and in-class discussions.
Showing posts with label blog 4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blog 4. Show all posts
Friday, September 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Many Methods of Rhetoric
For the majority of my experience as a student, I think that I’ve been exposed primarily to the current-traditional rhetoric model. I say this with a slight tinge of uncertainty because I also believe, trying to think back over all my years in school, that the other types of rhetoric (new and romantic) Williams discusses have also been incorporated throughout my education. Nevertheless, I’m used to the idea of “writing as thinking” (43). I’ve worked on countless writing assignments that aimed to shuttle my thoughts in one direction or another and to produce the “right answer.” And I can see why this type of teaching has led to such a significant decline in literacy for students across the nation over time. Students are uninterested in the content they have to write on and they’re intimidated by the pressure to always be mechanically and grammatically correct. The focus in writing today is all wrong.
Different types of rhetoric try to address this issue of what to center on when teaching writing and this presents another problem in and of itself. One of the most important concerns I picked up from this reading is that because there is no consensus on the best methods to instruct rhetoric and composition, most educational institutes continue to rely on the current-traditional rhetoric method. I became intrigued by the sections on new rhetoric and romantic rhetoric. This is something that we’ve been talking about in class for the past few weeks. In these methods, it’s all about process, revision, determining what you want to say, not how, and displaying your individual feelings. I found myself agreeing with the notion that writing can be improved if writers are allowed to express themselves and “search for individual ‘truth’” while letting go of all the “rules” (59). But then my feet touched the ground again when I read on and took in the opposing side of the argument. For one thing, it’s true that when reading a “personal experience paper” there is no way to know if the experiences mentioned are actually authentic (65). People make stuff up all the time just to complete an assignment and because they don’t want to actually reveal personal feelings/emotions in their writing. Additionally, as mentioned in the reading, most students (and I include myself in this) don’t feel the need to be ‘liberated’ via composition, which is a key idea in romantic rhetoric.
The task at hand of choosing the best approach to teaching writing if the emphasis can’t be on rules or writer confessions seems impossible. It’s no wonder that achievement levels in writing have plummeted. Part of the problem seems to be that too much emphasis is placed on the writer and not on the writer and audience. Writing across the curriculum (WAC) appears to be one way of tying together specific content areas and writing while paying attention to the audience. Still there are different methods of using WAC at different academic levels, so this too poses a hurdle for students and educators. Teachers in both the arts and sciences are daunted by the work and necessary collaboration that comes with teaching WAC. I found this chapter to be quite overwhelming, myself. Presented with all the different opinions and options available to educators I felt hopeless. It will be interesting to see over the next few years and with all the current technologies how schools adapt to writing in the real world as opposed to the traditional classroom assignments.
Different types of rhetoric try to address this issue of what to center on when teaching writing and this presents another problem in and of itself. One of the most important concerns I picked up from this reading is that because there is no consensus on the best methods to instruct rhetoric and composition, most educational institutes continue to rely on the current-traditional rhetoric method. I became intrigued by the sections on new rhetoric and romantic rhetoric. This is something that we’ve been talking about in class for the past few weeks. In these methods, it’s all about process, revision, determining what you want to say, not how, and displaying your individual feelings. I found myself agreeing with the notion that writing can be improved if writers are allowed to express themselves and “search for individual ‘truth’” while letting go of all the “rules” (59). But then my feet touched the ground again when I read on and took in the opposing side of the argument. For one thing, it’s true that when reading a “personal experience paper” there is no way to know if the experiences mentioned are actually authentic (65). People make stuff up all the time just to complete an assignment and because they don’t want to actually reveal personal feelings/emotions in their writing. Additionally, as mentioned in the reading, most students (and I include myself in this) don’t feel the need to be ‘liberated’ via composition, which is a key idea in romantic rhetoric.
The task at hand of choosing the best approach to teaching writing if the emphasis can’t be on rules or writer confessions seems impossible. It’s no wonder that achievement levels in writing have plummeted. Part of the problem seems to be that too much emphasis is placed on the writer and not on the writer and audience. Writing across the curriculum (WAC) appears to be one way of tying together specific content areas and writing while paying attention to the audience. Still there are different methods of using WAC at different academic levels, so this too poses a hurdle for students and educators. Teachers in both the arts and sciences are daunted by the work and necessary collaboration that comes with teaching WAC. I found this chapter to be quite overwhelming, myself. Presented with all the different opinions and options available to educators I felt hopeless. It will be interesting to see over the next few years and with all the current technologies how schools adapt to writing in the real world as opposed to the traditional classroom assignments.
Ahh so many methods!
Looking back to grade school, I would say that most of the instruction I received in writing was based on current-traditional rhetoric. I remember writing a lot of book reports or something similar to them, and they would mostly be a summary of what I had read. I didn’t learn how to really delve into a text and look “outside of the box” until I got to college. That was like a whole new world to me when I actually had to synthesize and make interpretations about what I read. It makes one think if high school really prepares you for college after all. In general, it does, but I was introduced to a lot of new things when I got to college, especially in writing. In addition, I recall the use of the “bottom-up” method. We would have to write an essay just defining one word or write a compare/contrast essay on characters from a novel. I don’t know if it was really helpful to me because it did not connect with anything; it was too straight forward and there was no room for much critical thinking. I thought the part in the chapter about grading student papers was interesting. Red marks all over the paper, correcting grammar and spelling, and a comment at the end of the essay—so typical. Is that really going to teach the student anything? I admit, most of the time I would simply turn to the last page of the essay, see what my grade was, and read the comment left by the teacher. I don’t think I often went back and looked at the grammar mistakes I made because once the essay was finished and graded, it was over. This is probably what a lot of students do, though. With that in mind, in order to truly improve students’ writing, teachers need to apply the grammar lessons to the students’ own writings. Instead of saying, “Oh, a lot of my students are terrible at grammar, so I have to go over the rules with them,” (which is probably said after the essays are graded), the grammar lessons and rules should be taught before the essays are written. In fact, grammar should be taught during the writing process of an essay or other form of writing. If the lesson of the day is comma rules, the students can go back through their drafts and correct their comma errors. Each lesson would be applied to the students’ writings, and maybe just maybe, there would be an improvement in their writing. Students learn nothing from doing grammar exercises out of a workbook; it needs to be applied to their own writing. I kind of went off in a tangent on grammar, but I have a huge concern on the way grammar is taught in schools, and this idea of the current-traditional rhetoric struck a nerve. I think the process approach of new rhetoric is a bit more successful in improving students’ writing. I think everyone has gone through the prewrite, draft, revise, edit, publish process as mentioned on page 54. It is important to go through these stages because it allows you to really take a good look at your work and reexamine it. Revision is vital when writing, and it doesn’t seem like current-traditional rhetoric focuses on it like new rhetoric does. Now if teachers applied the grammar lessons and other such lessons that lead to successful writing while going through this process, I think there would be a visible improvement in student writing. Of course, I like the romantic rhetoric method the best, and I think it would be the most successful in a classroom. I agree with Lindemann that “Good writing is most effective when we tell the truth about who we are and what we think” (62). Students and anyone for that matter enjoy writing when they can express how they really feel and use emotion. Page 62 discusses how “good writing” is frequently in the form of autobiographies and personal narratives. This is because the writing connects with the writer’s life. When writing a research report, one must almost take on a different character because the topic is oftentimes unfamiliar to them, which means things like expressive language and emotion is lost. I do understand, however, how drawing on personal experiences could be embarrassing for students if this romantic rhetoric is practiced in the classroom. Moreover, it is true that high school students are sometimes too young to have experienced certain events, and it is true that some narratives are made up—I know this because I have done it in the past when I had nothing to write about. In conclusion, it makes sense to somehow combine all of these methods; it does not seem like one method can be done in isolation. Is that really what happens?
This assigned reading was so informative to me. I didn’t know there were so many methods and things to think about when dealing with writing in the classroom. I always wondered what “writing across the curriculum” really encompassed. The method that was very new to me was the “linked model” method. I never had a class where a composition or English educator worked with a content area educator (like Social Studies) worked together to evaluate student work. I think that would be very beneficial to the students, but I can see where it would be difficult as well. It would be interesting to see how it works. I think WAC in general is a good thing to implement in schools because of its main aspect that students are given a purpose for their writing. As far as postmodern rhetoric and post-postmodern rhetoric go, I’m rather confused, so I hope someone can clear those two terms up. I don’t understand how you could do away with rhetoric and composition as postmodernists (if I’m correct) support? Towards the end of the reading, I felt a bit bombarded with all of the different methods and such, so everything started to run together. I would like to say that I agree with Katelyn about the whole writing portfolio process. I asked myself the same question as to why only Secondary English Education majors have to complete a writing portfolio. It goes with the whole idea of WAC; other content area teachers should also be responsible for teaching writing, not just English teachers. Therefore, Social Studies education majors and even math education majors should be taught writing methods in college as well.
This assigned reading was so informative to me. I didn’t know there were so many methods and things to think about when dealing with writing in the classroom. I always wondered what “writing across the curriculum” really encompassed. The method that was very new to me was the “linked model” method. I never had a class where a composition or English educator worked with a content area educator (like Social Studies) worked together to evaluate student work. I think that would be very beneficial to the students, but I can see where it would be difficult as well. It would be interesting to see how it works. I think WAC in general is a good thing to implement in schools because of its main aspect that students are given a purpose for their writing. As far as postmodern rhetoric and post-postmodern rhetoric go, I’m rather confused, so I hope someone can clear those two terms up. I don’t understand how you could do away with rhetoric and composition as postmodernists (if I’m correct) support? Towards the end of the reading, I felt a bit bombarded with all of the different methods and such, so everything started to run together. I would like to say that I agree with Katelyn about the whole writing portfolio process. I asked myself the same question as to why only Secondary English Education majors have to complete a writing portfolio. It goes with the whole idea of WAC; other content area teachers should also be responsible for teaching writing, not just English teachers. Therefore, Social Studies education majors and even math education majors should be taught writing methods in college as well.
Theories of contemporary rhetoric
One of my hobbies is knitting so reading Williams reviews of contemporary rhetorical theories made me just want to take parts of all of them and knit them together to make one very eclectic theory. I mentioned in an earlier blog post that same thought about classical rhetoric. I think it’s a no-brainer that each predecessor influences the next theory.
New theories get developed based on the perceived flaws of the old ones. One thing that stands out for me is that some new theories just take an old theory and invert it. Like current traditional theory with its emphasis on the bottom-up approach (structure) (45) gave way to new rhetoric and Kinneavy’s top-down approach (knowledge-generating) (53). Another example of this kind of inversion is postmodern theory as defined by Raschke to mean “everything that cannot be compressed in the term modern”. Modern meaning an attitude, a method of thought dominated by “empiricism and rationalism” (88,89) as opposed to Derrida’s deconstruction theory that there is “no connection between reason and what words signify” (91). Currently we are now moving toward what Fukuyama says, the “Great Reconstruction” (95). Every one of these theories is an attempt to correct what studies and test results conclude is wrong with the one that came before it. Unfortunately none of the new theories have been that successful at least according to the kind of evaluation tools that are used. I wonder if more emphasis should be placed on how we evaluate writing. Maybe those tools are flawed? Again as in classical rhetorical theories, politics and economics has played a part in developing contemporary theories.
Something that really stood out about current- traditional, romantic, and new rhetorical theories was that they put the writer at the “center of composing” and “ignore the influence of the audience” (80). I do believe some writing can ignore audiences like one’s personal journal, but most writing is for an audience and I agree that the audience basically controls what the writer produces (81,82).
In my own writing for grad school I have courses that involve scholarly and creative writing for an audience ranging from the professor, to a peer review audience like my classmates. Those pieces of work have particular style and content just for that audience.
My blog about my son’s last year as a Penn State football player has a different audience. I write it for friends and family, but I know since it is on the Internet it could be read by others not in my immediate target audience. So often when I am writing something for this blog I think about whom else may read it and then I write from that perspective. So I can see how the audience dictates what you write.
My conclusion about all these theories is that each one has some good and bad points. The problem is the same in writing, what criteria do we use to sort out the good from the bad to come up with something useful to facilitate rhetoric.
New theories get developed based on the perceived flaws of the old ones. One thing that stands out for me is that some new theories just take an old theory and invert it. Like current traditional theory with its emphasis on the bottom-up approach (structure) (45) gave way to new rhetoric and Kinneavy’s top-down approach (knowledge-generating) (53). Another example of this kind of inversion is postmodern theory as defined by Raschke to mean “everything that cannot be compressed in the term modern”. Modern meaning an attitude, a method of thought dominated by “empiricism and rationalism” (88,89) as opposed to Derrida’s deconstruction theory that there is “no connection between reason and what words signify” (91). Currently we are now moving toward what Fukuyama says, the “Great Reconstruction” (95). Every one of these theories is an attempt to correct what studies and test results conclude is wrong with the one that came before it. Unfortunately none of the new theories have been that successful at least according to the kind of evaluation tools that are used. I wonder if more emphasis should be placed on how we evaluate writing. Maybe those tools are flawed? Again as in classical rhetorical theories, politics and economics has played a part in developing contemporary theories.
Something that really stood out about current- traditional, romantic, and new rhetorical theories was that they put the writer at the “center of composing” and “ignore the influence of the audience” (80). I do believe some writing can ignore audiences like one’s personal journal, but most writing is for an audience and I agree that the audience basically controls what the writer produces (81,82).
In my own writing for grad school I have courses that involve scholarly and creative writing for an audience ranging from the professor, to a peer review audience like my classmates. Those pieces of work have particular style and content just for that audience.
My blog about my son’s last year as a Penn State football player has a different audience. I write it for friends and family, but I know since it is on the Internet it could be read by others not in my immediate target audience. So often when I am writing something for this blog I think about whom else may read it and then I write from that perspective. So I can see how the audience dictates what you write.
My conclusion about all these theories is that each one has some good and bad points. The problem is the same in writing, what criteria do we use to sort out the good from the bad to come up with something useful to facilitate rhetoric.
Teachers Must Know All
I was definitely able to connect with the Romantic Rhetoric theory. I enjoy writing what is real and authentic. To me, expression is what writing is all about. This whole section brought me back to what Peter Elbow was saying about how individuals must find their own voice. Erika Lindemann states, “Good writing is most effective when we tell the truth about who we are and what we think.” This quote makes perfect sense, because people enjoy writing that they can somehow personally relate to. It does not matter if something is fact or fiction, but the reader has to be able create meaning from it. The book explains how personal writing is more interesting to read than academic writing. Clearly, this is why most people prefer to sit down and read a novel, opposed to scholarly articles. The freedom of expression is essential to producing something original and meaningful. I believe writing is primarily an art, because it is so personal and expressive; however, it depends what type of writing you are doing.
Even though Romantic Rhetoric speaks to me, so does New Rhetoric and Process. In most of my English classrooms in school there were signs that said, Prewriting, Planning, Drafting, Revising, Editing, and Publishing. This is basically how I was taught to write, even though I didn’t always use the process. Writing really is a very gradual process that requires a lot of steps to reach the finished product. To me, Prewriting is kind of like Free writing, as discussed in Peter Elbow’s book. If someone is writing a research paper or an essay I feel like this approach is very effective. Unlike creative writing, research writing demands a lot of planning and organization. I suppose I just realized that the process of writing depends on what type of writing you are doing. I definitely have different methods for the types of writing that I do. I guess that is why learning about rhetoric really helps to teach students how to write. It all boils down to options and variety in writing and approaches to writing.
As New Rhetoric explains, grammar does not improve writing abilities. However, even though it has been taught from third grade until high school, it is still something I second-guess myself with. I liked when teachers marked on my papers grammatical errors that I made, because then I realized what I was doing wrong. No it does not help the content of my writing, but it still improved some elements of my writing. I do enjoy the idea of focusing on content, but I don’t think it is important to forget about grammar, which is what all of the readings are kind of suggesting. Maybe they are not trying to forget it, but they are looking at it as less important. I think both are very important. However, grammar must be last when writing a paper.
I do think the more you write, the better you get. Therefore, I enjoyed reading about WAC (Writing Across the Curriculum). There are so many different kinds of writing, and I think it is impossible to teach everything in solely an English class. Plus, some people are better at different types of writing. Therefore, maybe they won’t say I hate writing, but I hate creative writing, or some other form. The most important aspects of this reading is there are many different types of writings and many different approaches to teaching writing that are crucial, in order to produce better writers.
Even though Romantic Rhetoric speaks to me, so does New Rhetoric and Process. In most of my English classrooms in school there were signs that said, Prewriting, Planning, Drafting, Revising, Editing, and Publishing. This is basically how I was taught to write, even though I didn’t always use the process. Writing really is a very gradual process that requires a lot of steps to reach the finished product. To me, Prewriting is kind of like Free writing, as discussed in Peter Elbow’s book. If someone is writing a research paper or an essay I feel like this approach is very effective. Unlike creative writing, research writing demands a lot of planning and organization. I suppose I just realized that the process of writing depends on what type of writing you are doing. I definitely have different methods for the types of writing that I do. I guess that is why learning about rhetoric really helps to teach students how to write. It all boils down to options and variety in writing and approaches to writing.
As New Rhetoric explains, grammar does not improve writing abilities. However, even though it has been taught from third grade until high school, it is still something I second-guess myself with. I liked when teachers marked on my papers grammatical errors that I made, because then I realized what I was doing wrong. No it does not help the content of my writing, but it still improved some elements of my writing. I do enjoy the idea of focusing on content, but I don’t think it is important to forget about grammar, which is what all of the readings are kind of suggesting. Maybe they are not trying to forget it, but they are looking at it as less important. I think both are very important. However, grammar must be last when writing a paper.
I do think the more you write, the better you get. Therefore, I enjoyed reading about WAC (Writing Across the Curriculum). There are so many different kinds of writing, and I think it is impossible to teach everything in solely an English class. Plus, some people are better at different types of writing. Therefore, maybe they won’t say I hate writing, but I hate creative writing, or some other form. The most important aspects of this reading is there are many different types of writings and many different approaches to teaching writing that are crucial, in order to produce better writers.
I like the idea of using romantic rhetoric to explore your thoughts and feelings through self-expression. I always liked this idea because it does make students more interested and personally involved in their writing. I like that there is no "right" or wrong" to it. Students don't have to feel intimidated and unsure about their writing. (at least from a grading point of view) It states how the the writing is very confessional and how the most successful include painful personal experiences. This reminds me about The Freedom Writers movie and the work of Erin Gruwell. She encouraged her students to write self-expressive entries that helped the students to deal with the problems in their lives and form a sense of community in the classroom. I think that self- expressive writing would be really beneficial in the classroom.
It gave an example of how when students write a book report they include a section about their reaction or response to the book detailing their feelings. I remember doing a book report like this and I remember writing it with ease in junior high. I knew I had read the book and my opinion on it couldn't be wrong. I felt confident when I wrote it and I remember getting a good grade on it. This happened in junior high school and I still remember it. I think the writing does appear more authentic when it is written from your own personal experience or knowledge.
I like the idea of Writing Across the Curriculum. I like the examples for the art and science class in the elementary school. The writing-intensive model for middle school and high school did not appeal to me as much, but I would try to make it a little more creative. I have never been involved in an education that emphasized WAC. ( or if I was I don't remember it)
I hope that emoticons do not start to show up in my students papers when I go out teaching. I would love to grade more on content than mechanics, but emoticons are completely inappropriate. I would allow them in content focused journal entries, but not in anything else. I would not allow them to use these in their papers. I would have to agree with the more traditional teachers that it would not be preparing them for the workplace, which would not allow use of emoticons. Students must be able to learn to write without them for more professional documents or they will be unsuccessful.
It gave an example of how when students write a book report they include a section about their reaction or response to the book detailing their feelings. I remember doing a book report like this and I remember writing it with ease in junior high. I knew I had read the book and my opinion on it couldn't be wrong. I felt confident when I wrote it and I remember getting a good grade on it. This happened in junior high school and I still remember it. I think the writing does appear more authentic when it is written from your own personal experience or knowledge.
I like the idea of Writing Across the Curriculum. I like the examples for the art and science class in the elementary school. The writing-intensive model for middle school and high school did not appeal to me as much, but I would try to make it a little more creative. I have never been involved in an education that emphasized WAC. ( or if I was I don't remember it)
I hope that emoticons do not start to show up in my students papers when I go out teaching. I would love to grade more on content than mechanics, but emoticons are completely inappropriate. I would allow them in content focused journal entries, but not in anything else. I would not allow them to use these in their papers. I would have to agree with the more traditional teachers that it would not be preparing them for the workplace, which would not allow use of emoticons. Students must be able to learn to write without them for more professional documents or they will be unsuccessful.
It takes a village to teach a child how to write
Williams, Williams, Williams. You make it hard for a girl to focus! Because of the loads of information squeezed into this reading, I will concentrate on the two aspects that stuck out to me. The first is romantic rhetoric. Ahh how sweet. Personally, I love to write about myself. I know this is quite ego centric, but I have so much to experiment with when it comes to writing about my own life. To echo some of the sentiments from the text, good writing is “honest, true and authentic.” It should be fun. This is the kind of writing that gets students to write for themselves first, rather than for anyone else. I was kind of turned off by the idea of comparing romantic or personal writing to “confessional” writing. The word confession brings with it a slightly negative connotation. Confess your secrets! Confess your sins! I do not necessarily think that confession is always a negative thing, it can also be quite positive. Yet, I do not like the term being generically used to define all sorts of expressive and personal writing styles. Like Jamie mentioned, I too was a bit offended by Williams’ remarks about teenagers being unable to produce interesting writing from their life experiences. Does Williams actually know any teenagers? What a ridiculously ignorant comment. Additionally, Williams argues that some students might “make up” events to put into their personalized writing because they feel pressured to make it interesting. Is this really a real problem? I know that integrity and honesty are hugely important in school and life. Yet, why is it so wrong for students to embellish upon their writing? They are still producing pieces of the truth within their writing. They are learning about themselves and different styles of writing. And most importantly, they are writing. I’ve done this. I’ve embellished every personal essay I’ve written. There is a confession. Maybe some people think this is wrong, but I think I just got caught up in my writing. I’ve never changed the meaning behind my personal experiences by doing this. In this sense, I don’t think it made my pieces dishonest. Maybe this is extremely taboo of me to talk about. However, I really don’t think that sneaking bits of fiction into personalized writing is a real problem within education. There is a difference between biographical and personalized/expressive writing. I think it is ok to mix fiction with truth in personalized essays…as long as a student doesn’t go on Oprah pretending that her writing was the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The other area that really stood out to me within this reading was writing across the curriculum. At my previous university, we had writing intensive classes across the curriculum. I liked this method. I think it made me a more well rounded student. It held teachers accountable to help students understand different methods of writing. I had a minor in Sociology, and my writing intensive sociology classes/teachers were responsible for teaching us how to adapt to the APA or ASA format and specific styles that were acceptable for social science papers. Within the reading, I thought that the linked model would probably be a beneficial and educational way to teach students different writing styles. Yet, I also think it is a lot of extra work, especially at a college level. If professors are not able to guide students to write in the regulations of their content area, then they should not be a professor. If a teacher in any content area is not willing to teach or expand a student’s knowledge in writing, than why do those teachers assign students to write papers in their classes? Why are English teachers the only teachers who are responsible for teaching students how to write? Frankly, I think this is absolutely absurd. Why is it an English teacher’s responsibility to teach students how to write scientifically? I am not trying to back down from the responsibility of teaching writing. Yes, it is primarily an English teacher’s duty to teach writing. Yes, they can teach students how to react and interact with different audiences and writing styles. However, I really believe that teachers in other content areas should be partially responsible for teaching their students to write in that specific content area. Why is it that the only secondary education students at this university to have to complete a writing portfolio are the English students? Why not the social studies students? A lot of writing is involved in social studies. I don’t think this is fair. I can understand why the university makes future English teachers go through this process, but I do not know why they do not make everybody else go through it as well. To me, this is just an example of irresponsibility. I am very frustrated with this. Students would have such a rich and well rounded educational experience if more teachers in more content areas were willing to teach students a thing or two about writing.
The other area that really stood out to me within this reading was writing across the curriculum. At my previous university, we had writing intensive classes across the curriculum. I liked this method. I think it made me a more well rounded student. It held teachers accountable to help students understand different methods of writing. I had a minor in Sociology, and my writing intensive sociology classes/teachers were responsible for teaching us how to adapt to the APA or ASA format and specific styles that were acceptable for social science papers. Within the reading, I thought that the linked model would probably be a beneficial and educational way to teach students different writing styles. Yet, I also think it is a lot of extra work, especially at a college level. If professors are not able to guide students to write in the regulations of their content area, then they should not be a professor. If a teacher in any content area is not willing to teach or expand a student’s knowledge in writing, than why do those teachers assign students to write papers in their classes? Why are English teachers the only teachers who are responsible for teaching students how to write? Frankly, I think this is absolutely absurd. Why is it an English teacher’s responsibility to teach students how to write scientifically? I am not trying to back down from the responsibility of teaching writing. Yes, it is primarily an English teacher’s duty to teach writing. Yes, they can teach students how to react and interact with different audiences and writing styles. However, I really believe that teachers in other content areas should be partially responsible for teaching their students to write in that specific content area. Why is it that the only secondary education students at this university to have to complete a writing portfolio are the English students? Why not the social studies students? A lot of writing is involved in social studies. I don’t think this is fair. I can understand why the university makes future English teachers go through this process, but I do not know why they do not make everybody else go through it as well. To me, this is just an example of irresponsibility. I am very frustrated with this. Students would have such a rich and well rounded educational experience if more teachers in more content areas were willing to teach students a thing or two about writing.
Helping, not telling
Towards the end of the section on Romantic rhetoric, Williams points out, and says that opponents of Romantic rhetoric want to know one thing: “how teachers are suppose to empower their students and what they are suppose to empower them to do.” (p. 66)
Fair enough question.
As an advocate of Romantic rhetoric myself, I have one thought, or answer if you must, to these opponents: Romantic rhetoric is a way of self-expression, of free-writing to allow the students to think freely, write freely – self-exploration – all of which Williams has pointed out. It’s a creative way to think, write, act, and feel free of judgment and criticism, and a staple (I think) in our critical thought-process analytical abilities. If we can’t think and learn about how we feel about ourselves, about our abilities, our goals, our likes, our dislikes, our opinions… how are we going to be able to focus and critically analyze a foreign topic? If we can’t organize and learn from our own thoughts, how are we going to do so for others?
The question on how are we suppose to empower our students is a question I believe every teacher – whether an opponent or advocate of romantic rhetoric or not – struggles with; and there is no easy, right, or wrong way to do so. All you can do, just like a parent with their children, is to teach them that thinking for themselves, emotionally and critically, is what is going to help in all courses of work. Sure, they have only been through so much as kids, but every child has something they believe in, whether it’d be something as small as Santa Claus or something as important as poverty, global aid, or abortion, but as long as their finding their abilities to think about how they feel about a chosen topic, it will allow them to think critically and effectively about other topics in schooling.
It all boils down to taking this romantic rhetoric piece - the freely written assignment without structure - and to: 1.) Ask them to take a look at what they wrote, and ask them why they wrote (or feel) that way, to provide definition to what made them feel that way - what was their source? how did they learn about the topic at hand? etc. etc.; 2.) help students how to formally organize it with a structure from beginning to end I.E. : Introduction: saying what it is they wrote about; Body: information, thoughts and feelings; Conclusion: why they feel that way.
That was of course a loose, informal example but you get the point. All in all, I think romantic rhetoric is something that will not only help students think for themselves and give them personal satisfaction, but will also help them organize and give opinions and meaning to a topic at hand.
Fair enough question.
As an advocate of Romantic rhetoric myself, I have one thought, or answer if you must, to these opponents: Romantic rhetoric is a way of self-expression, of free-writing to allow the students to think freely, write freely – self-exploration – all of which Williams has pointed out. It’s a creative way to think, write, act, and feel free of judgment and criticism, and a staple (I think) in our critical thought-process analytical abilities. If we can’t think and learn about how we feel about ourselves, about our abilities, our goals, our likes, our dislikes, our opinions… how are we going to be able to focus and critically analyze a foreign topic? If we can’t organize and learn from our own thoughts, how are we going to do so for others?
The question on how are we suppose to empower our students is a question I believe every teacher – whether an opponent or advocate of romantic rhetoric or not – struggles with; and there is no easy, right, or wrong way to do so. All you can do, just like a parent with their children, is to teach them that thinking for themselves, emotionally and critically, is what is going to help in all courses of work. Sure, they have only been through so much as kids, but every child has something they believe in, whether it’d be something as small as Santa Claus or something as important as poverty, global aid, or abortion, but as long as their finding their abilities to think about how they feel about a chosen topic, it will allow them to think critically and effectively about other topics in schooling.
It all boils down to taking this romantic rhetoric piece - the freely written assignment without structure - and to: 1.) Ask them to take a look at what they wrote, and ask them why they wrote (or feel) that way, to provide definition to what made them feel that way - what was their source? how did they learn about the topic at hand? etc. etc.; 2.) help students how to formally organize it with a structure from beginning to end I.E. : Introduction: saying what it is they wrote about; Body: information, thoughts and feelings; Conclusion: why they feel that way.
That was of course a loose, informal example but you get the point. All in all, I think romantic rhetoric is something that will not only help students think for themselves and give them personal satisfaction, but will also help them organize and give opinions and meaning to a topic at hand.
Theory
First off all I have to say is that was a whole lot of information. My head is swirling with all these different approaches and pedagogies. I am simply amazed at how much information Williams is able to fit into what equates to still a very long chapter. I think to really grasp all the information that he is trying to convey I would need to read this chapter alone two to three more times.
I think that there is a lot of good information with this chapter and some pretty controversial issues as well. What I found the most interesting is how we changed our college curriculum to go with the new population of students. This does not show to me the integrity these colleges tout about within their degree programs. Basically because they still wanted to bring in the money for this increase in the college population, they dumbed down the curriculum. That does not put much value on the B.A. or B.S. we seemingly work so hard to obtain!
Writing across the Curriculum was interesting as well because we already hear so much about. That is a term that even someone that is not an education major is familiar with. I like what Williams says on page 68 “no single set of skills is applicable in all situations; instead, different kinds of writing for different audiences and purposes require different sets of skills.” This one sentence says a lot about what I feel we are trying to teach kids. Why is it that not until you get to college that we learn about how to write a lab report, and then a persuasive piece, and then something creative. To top that all these different types of writing are meant for different audiences therefore require a different voice from the author (or you).
Even now in my college courses I find myself getting frustrated with the constraints that teachers want to put on you for the ending product of a writing process. I won’t get started on that though because that is a long sordid story……..
I think that there is a lot of good information with this chapter and some pretty controversial issues as well. What I found the most interesting is how we changed our college curriculum to go with the new population of students. This does not show to me the integrity these colleges tout about within their degree programs. Basically because they still wanted to bring in the money for this increase in the college population, they dumbed down the curriculum. That does not put much value on the B.A. or B.S. we seemingly work so hard to obtain!
Writing across the Curriculum was interesting as well because we already hear so much about. That is a term that even someone that is not an education major is familiar with. I like what Williams says on page 68 “no single set of skills is applicable in all situations; instead, different kinds of writing for different audiences and purposes require different sets of skills.” This one sentence says a lot about what I feel we are trying to teach kids. Why is it that not until you get to college that we learn about how to write a lab report, and then a persuasive piece, and then something creative. To top that all these different types of writing are meant for different audiences therefore require a different voice from the author (or you).
Even now in my college courses I find myself getting frustrated with the constraints that teachers want to put on you for the ending product of a writing process. I won’t get started on that though because that is a long sordid story……..
so many theories...
Hey All,
I am sort of flying blind here. I left my book in my truck, so bear with me if I seem to stray off topic just a little bit. I did the reading, but it was a few days ago.
Anyway, I think that, from a philosophical perspective, it's interesting that there seem to be so many theories in regard to reading, writing, and rhetoric floating around. I was surprised to learn that lately (if I am recalling this correctly based on the reading) there has actually been little, or maybe less, emphasis placed on rhetoricism in the schools today. Also, why all the conflict between the literature purists and the rhetoriticians? I found this whole thing to be a bit confusing. Also, I found myself wondering how I, as a future English teacher, could devise lesson plans what incorporate both of these topics. Is this even encouraged in schools today? I haven't the foggiest idea, but I guess it depends on the particular district in which you are employed.
I suppose that cutting out topics such as rhetoric is just a reflection of the overall movement to reduce the study of the humanities in general in our school system. If this is the case, and I believe it is in many schools, then is this being done is response to the increased demands of standardized testing? I would assume so, although I am sure that there are many other factors to consider as well. Also, this isn't to suggest that this is taking place at every school, just that it's a trend right now.
I like the fact that Williams uses the phrase writing to learn, probably because that seems to be what writing is really about, at least for me. Before I started this blog, I didn’t know where it was going to take me. Now, I’ve sort of ventured off the beaten path and gotten into things that I never planned to discuss in the first place. It's like writing enables you to purge your mind of all the stuff that floats around up there, even if you didn't know that it existed there in the first place.
Next, I’ll get into deconstruction, which I have found to be absolutely exhausting at times. I think that, as a theory, it kind of turns everything that you’ve been taught to expect, at least regarding language, on its head. Basically, things are upside down. To say that language has no meaning, well, to me, that just appears to promote chaos, but I guess that's what the whole deconstruction movement is all about. To undo the meaning of the text, or to say that it has no meaning, is a very difficult thing for me to grasp as a reader. I think that this is something that you’ve got to learn to gradually ease yourself into over time. I don’t find it easy to slip into this mindset. But I guess people like Derrida would suggest that that is because I have been programmed not to do so.
Bye.
I am sort of flying blind here. I left my book in my truck, so bear with me if I seem to stray off topic just a little bit. I did the reading, but it was a few days ago.
Anyway, I think that, from a philosophical perspective, it's interesting that there seem to be so many theories in regard to reading, writing, and rhetoric floating around. I was surprised to learn that lately (if I am recalling this correctly based on the reading) there has actually been little, or maybe less, emphasis placed on rhetoricism in the schools today. Also, why all the conflict between the literature purists and the rhetoriticians? I found this whole thing to be a bit confusing. Also, I found myself wondering how I, as a future English teacher, could devise lesson plans what incorporate both of these topics. Is this even encouraged in schools today? I haven't the foggiest idea, but I guess it depends on the particular district in which you are employed.
I suppose that cutting out topics such as rhetoric is just a reflection of the overall movement to reduce the study of the humanities in general in our school system. If this is the case, and I believe it is in many schools, then is this being done is response to the increased demands of standardized testing? I would assume so, although I am sure that there are many other factors to consider as well. Also, this isn't to suggest that this is taking place at every school, just that it's a trend right now.
I like the fact that Williams uses the phrase writing to learn, probably because that seems to be what writing is really about, at least for me. Before I started this blog, I didn’t know where it was going to take me. Now, I’ve sort of ventured off the beaten path and gotten into things that I never planned to discuss in the first place. It's like writing enables you to purge your mind of all the stuff that floats around up there, even if you didn't know that it existed there in the first place.
Next, I’ll get into deconstruction, which I have found to be absolutely exhausting at times. I think that, as a theory, it kind of turns everything that you’ve been taught to expect, at least regarding language, on its head. Basically, things are upside down. To say that language has no meaning, well, to me, that just appears to promote chaos, but I guess that's what the whole deconstruction movement is all about. To undo the meaning of the text, or to say that it has no meaning, is a very difficult thing for me to grasp as a reader. I think that this is something that you’ve got to learn to gradually ease yourself into over time. I don’t find it easy to slip into this mindset. But I guess people like Derrida would suggest that that is because I have been programmed not to do so.
Bye.
Things that make you go hmmm
After completing the reading, I had an overwhelming feeling that I had just been led somewhere and not in a good way. I agree with Rachael in that she said that Williams writes with a heavy bias. There was an undertone in his writing that seems to say “this is bad” or “this is good.” This week’s reading has a lot of information to process, so I’m just going to touch on a few of the things that made me stop reading in order to think about what I had just read. In other words, things that made me go hmmm.
At the very beginning of the reading, Williams says that “A commonplace in education is that most teachers teach the way they themselves were taught. Education classes are designed, in part, to provide an alternative based on research and theory, but they are not always successful in moving teachers away from methods based on their own experiences.” (42) Williams goes on to say that because there are so many approaches to writing instruction that teachers find it difficult to get through it all and instead decide to fall back on their own experiences as students. This actually felt like a thinly veiled insult to teachers by saying they don’t want to do the work but instead opt for the easiest way to teach. I will be the first to admit that there were many teaching methods that my own teachers used that were less than ideal, however, there were many that were stellar. It goes back to that bag of tricks that was mentioned in other blogs; we need a variety of tools in order to teach a variety of students. Using only one type of teaching on a class of individuals with different learning styles just isn’t going to be successful. We need to have alternatives available for students whose learning style differs from the “norm,” and it is quite possible that something from my own experience as a student may serve that purpose. If you think about it, there was something in the methods of my teachers that helped me become a good writer.
There were elements in the reading that I did like as well. When describing the failure probability of the cookbook approach to writing, Williams states that “The five paragraph model not only has no real counterpart outside the classroom but also inevitably leads to the sort of shallow, unreflective writing that we all decry as the plague of American public education.” (46) I couldn’t agree more. Recently, I had to write a group of essays for my writing portfolio requirement. One of these essays had several broad topics to choose from, however, we were limited to 1-2 pages. This was by far the hardest, and ultimately, the cheesiest paper I’ve ever written. I had many good, well-thought out ideas for the topic, but because of the constraints on space I barely even touched on a few of these ideas. In my opinion, the best instruction for length of papers is that it should be as long as it needs to be.
Overall, I felt that Williams writes with a bit of an elitist attitude. I did like some things that he included, such as the universal features that all good writers share, but again I really felt like he was leading me and I took offense to several entries such as this quote that followed a section on a study of “Black” English,“… many people believed that if teachers just offered more of both (grammar and logic instruction), the barbarians pouring through the gates of academe would become civilized.” (50)
So, Williams made me think, made me a little angry, and made me go hmmm.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
I was struck by a line on the very first page of this week’s reading: “Teachers often find it difficult to work their way through the resulting noise and therefore elect to hold to the approach that feels most comfortable-the one they experienced as students-regardless of whether it is effective or theoretically sound.” I can see how this could happen. Just in the first two chapters of Williams’ book alone, there are so many competing theories and styles of rhetoric to sift through, it can be very overwhelming. It would be easier to fall back on what you know or the ways in which you were taught. English classes were my favorite classes in high school and college mainly because of my teachers and they way they taught. Of course I would love to incorporate their methods into my classrooms in the future. But is that the best idea? What worked for me in a classroom may not work with the various types of students I will have. I think it’s important to have knowledge of all the theories and practices, both good and bad.
Out of all the contemporary rhetoric philosophies Williams discusses in this chapter, I remember being taught the “New Rhetoric and Process” theory the most. We always followed those steps he lined out: prewriting, planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Depending on the teacher, though, prewriting and planning were not always ‘official’ steps. I can see how this method can be effective. It allows students to have feedback on their writing and work from there. It gives students a structure to follow which can be helpful for some. It possibly can take a mediocre first draft of a paper and turn it into an ‘A’ paper. According to Williams, though, this method, like many others, has not been completely successful in improving students’ writing abilities. This theory could also bring up the debate of grammar versus content. This method places less emphasis on grammar and more on the crafting and content of the paper. Or it could be that it is a theory still based on rules, and those rules may not apply to every type of student and writer?
Williams later discusses Romanic Rhetoric, a theory that I’m not entirely too sure could be effective. Romantic rhetoric places heavy emphasis on expressive writing. They teach that there is no right or wrong, “only the expression of true feeling.” I definitely believe that expressive writing belongs in the classroom and can be helpful, but I don’t think it could be successful as the only method of writing. For one thing, this method ignores the fact that there are different styles of writing outside of expressive writing. I don’t think it’s good for students to graduate high school and college only knowing how to write about themselves and their experiences. In their careers and their personal lives, I am sure they will have to do different types of writing other than about themselves.
I could go on like this about the other theories Williams talks about. Each one has their benefits and their flaws. It seems to me that the best system of rhetoric might be a mixture of the best elements of all the different theories. I don’t know how practical this is, but it seems like it’s worth a try.
Approaches, Tricks.
In our group discussion meetings, Winnona constantly states, “Teachers have to have something in their bag of tricks.” What Williams writes of, in his section on Contemporary Rhetoric and approaches to teaching writing, all could have a place in that metaphorical bag. Although Williams writes with a heavy bias, and is all too willing to discredit some of the theories within, I feel that each rhetorical stance has some element applicable to the classroom.
None of these methods has to be used exclusively. There is something to be said for an eclectic approach. We do not all think the same way, read the same way, or write the same way. For example, although the research provided by Williams states that the Current-traditional rhetoric is ineffective among students, it should not be tossed aside wholly. If one student does take something from the bottom-up approach, then it should rightfully remain in that bag. Methodologies can be edited, and suited to fit the means of the instructor.
Similarly, no teacher should rely on uniform assessment. As in the case of Romantic rhetoric, the whole of a classroom should not revolve around personal narrative, but that is not to say that it does not have its place. Variety is what accounts for critical thinking and increased learning. Personal reflections are extremely valuable, and can be used to great effect in the classroom. Romantic rhetoric should not be made into a leper by Williams. Instead, it should be accepted in moderation, as a strategy and not a year-round plan.
Although the research showcased by Williams demonstrates the superiority of certain approaches, I have found that a truly effectual teacher is one that allows for variety in method and practice (given it follows standards). The bag of tricks would not be so if it contained only one sorry tried and true routine. In order to benefit all students, that bag should be overflowing.
Real people write for real reasons...
I found this section to be very interesting. There is so much information to absorb. The first thing I took interest in was the statement, “writing as thinking.” Does this mean teachers have to teach their students how to think? Is thinking something that can be taught? I am not sure I agree with this. Thinking is just something that comes naturally. You think all the time without realizing it. I think we can teach someone how to go about critical thinking. General thinking is simply something that is just done.
I also found it interesting when the author said that teachers grade papers as if they were preparing a manuscript to be published. Teachers are so worried about grammar and punctuation, rather than the actual content. I think Elbow would definitely not agree with this. Even though grammar is very important, it does not necessarily improve their writing skills.
Some approaches to help teach students how to write include, the five paragraph essay, the funnel introductory paragraph, and seven easy steps to composing. The only approach that I learned in school was the five paragraph essay. This was when the teachers would say that an essay was not complete if there aren’t five paragraphs. This really did not teach us anything but to make things us to fill the page. This doesn’t seem like the right approach.
New rhetoric is more involved with the content rather than the style. The triangle theory comes hand in hand with this. It has the encoder, decoder, and reality. It basically says that people write with reason.
I am sure everyone used the stages of writing. The stages include prewriting, planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Do we agree with these stages? How did you learn how to compose an essay? What methods were you taught, and did they work? There are many forms of planning. I remember using a web filled with my ideas I came up with during the brainstorming period.
Romantic rhetoric is using the imagination and gives you the freedom of expression. Then WAC was introduced. Real people write for real reasons. It has the intentions of making writing more realistic. WAC is used throughout elementary, middle, and high school. WAC has different purposes in each grade level. I think it is a great way to link all the subjects together. This will only work when the teachers and administration cooperates. One of the goals is to make the non English teachers better writers. WAC is great! It only takes a few teachers to get together and decide that they want their students to become better writers. On the other hand, WAC has its downfall. According to the author it doesn’t give the writer a voice. I am not so sure I agree with this. It might be more limiting, but the writer can always express themselves.
This section was much easier and more tolerable to read. I did feel as if the author was somewhat redundant. Maybe this was his way to get his point through to us. He says we write for real reasons on several occasions throughout the book. This must have been a point he wanted us to remember.
I also found it interesting when the author said that teachers grade papers as if they were preparing a manuscript to be published. Teachers are so worried about grammar and punctuation, rather than the actual content. I think Elbow would definitely not agree with this. Even though grammar is very important, it does not necessarily improve their writing skills.
Some approaches to help teach students how to write include, the five paragraph essay, the funnel introductory paragraph, and seven easy steps to composing. The only approach that I learned in school was the five paragraph essay. This was when the teachers would say that an essay was not complete if there aren’t five paragraphs. This really did not teach us anything but to make things us to fill the page. This doesn’t seem like the right approach.
New rhetoric is more involved with the content rather than the style. The triangle theory comes hand in hand with this. It has the encoder, decoder, and reality. It basically says that people write with reason.
I am sure everyone used the stages of writing. The stages include prewriting, planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Do we agree with these stages? How did you learn how to compose an essay? What methods were you taught, and did they work? There are many forms of planning. I remember using a web filled with my ideas I came up with during the brainstorming period.
Romantic rhetoric is using the imagination and gives you the freedom of expression. Then WAC was introduced. Real people write for real reasons. It has the intentions of making writing more realistic. WAC is used throughout elementary, middle, and high school. WAC has different purposes in each grade level. I think it is a great way to link all the subjects together. This will only work when the teachers and administration cooperates. One of the goals is to make the non English teachers better writers. WAC is great! It only takes a few teachers to get together and decide that they want their students to become better writers. On the other hand, WAC has its downfall. According to the author it doesn’t give the writer a voice. I am not so sure I agree with this. It might be more limiting, but the writer can always express themselves.
This section was much easier and more tolerable to read. I did feel as if the author was somewhat redundant. Maybe this was his way to get his point through to us. He says we write for real reasons on several occasions throughout the book. This must have been a point he wanted us to remember.
Balance, Clarity, and a Side Note
I had two major thoughts running through my head while reading this section:
1) “Can’t we just find a balance?”
As Williams discussed the benefits and fallbacks of different rhetorical models, I kept thinking the best solution is to introduce students to each style. I don’t think any writing class should be taught in one absolute format. Yes, students need to know how to write in a professional manner, but you don’t want to kill their interest by assigning research paper after research paper.
And although it seemed that many people have come down hard on the need for romantic rhetoric, including Williams, I do see a benefit in writing that is meant to encourage self-growth. I think it may in fact be easier to teach students lessons about style and clarity that they can employ in analytical writing by introducing them to these concepts through personal writing.
On a side note, I particularly took some offense to this statement: “Although there is no question that vivid, interesting, and moving writing is better than the opposite in some situations, this pressure ignores the fact that most teenagers have not lived long enough to accumulate many interesting or moving life experiences.” –According to whose notion of “interesting” and “moving” Mr. Williams? Maybe you’re not interested in reading about a student winning a track meet, but that event could be very moving to them. Also, you may be surprised to find out the events that many teenagers, even those in your average middle-class suburbs, have stored in their backgrounds. Giving them a chance to be heard can do wonders for encouraging their writing development as well as their basic desire to learn.
2) “Clarity is a common denominator.”
This was my mantra in relation to the WAC conundrum. Williams states that Writing Across the Curriculum is designed to allow students to practice forms of writing that are not just indicative of “English papers” since many students will never write another English paper in their lives post-high school. One problem Williams proposes is that writing instruction becomes more focused on style rather than content.
I think that teaching students the importance of clarity in what they are writing is a good way of uniting style and content. If I assign a critical essay for an English class, I can say to a student who has not done well that their paper lacks clarity. Their thesis has not convinced me because they did not include enough references to back up their argument and/or other supporting information from the text (content), or the information was poorly arranged (style).
I think it’s completely possible to move this same basic lesson for writing improvement to a different classroom environment. For example, if a student in a science or math class presents a hypothesis, I could go back to the same forefront notion of clarity. I am not sold on their hypothesis because I did not see enough evidence to back it up (content) or because the way the evidence was presented was confusing (style).
I was taught that no matter what you may be writing, whether it’s for a biology class or an AP English class, you always need to keep this in mind: Who is your audience, and will they be able to understand your point of view by what you have written? I think keeping that same basic criteria on an interdisciplinary level will help students realize an effective way to check their writing for different subjects they approach.
1) “Can’t we just find a balance?”
As Williams discussed the benefits and fallbacks of different rhetorical models, I kept thinking the best solution is to introduce students to each style. I don’t think any writing class should be taught in one absolute format. Yes, students need to know how to write in a professional manner, but you don’t want to kill their interest by assigning research paper after research paper.
And although it seemed that many people have come down hard on the need for romantic rhetoric, including Williams, I do see a benefit in writing that is meant to encourage self-growth. I think it may in fact be easier to teach students lessons about style and clarity that they can employ in analytical writing by introducing them to these concepts through personal writing.
On a side note, I particularly took some offense to this statement: “Although there is no question that vivid, interesting, and moving writing is better than the opposite in some situations, this pressure ignores the fact that most teenagers have not lived long enough to accumulate many interesting or moving life experiences.” –According to whose notion of “interesting” and “moving” Mr. Williams? Maybe you’re not interested in reading about a student winning a track meet, but that event could be very moving to them. Also, you may be surprised to find out the events that many teenagers, even those in your average middle-class suburbs, have stored in their backgrounds. Giving them a chance to be heard can do wonders for encouraging their writing development as well as their basic desire to learn.
2) “Clarity is a common denominator.”
This was my mantra in relation to the WAC conundrum. Williams states that Writing Across the Curriculum is designed to allow students to practice forms of writing that are not just indicative of “English papers” since many students will never write another English paper in their lives post-high school. One problem Williams proposes is that writing instruction becomes more focused on style rather than content.
I think that teaching students the importance of clarity in what they are writing is a good way of uniting style and content. If I assign a critical essay for an English class, I can say to a student who has not done well that their paper lacks clarity. Their thesis has not convinced me because they did not include enough references to back up their argument and/or other supporting information from the text (content), or the information was poorly arranged (style).
I think it’s completely possible to move this same basic lesson for writing improvement to a different classroom environment. For example, if a student in a science or math class presents a hypothesis, I could go back to the same forefront notion of clarity. I am not sold on their hypothesis because I did not see enough evidence to back it up (content) or because the way the evidence was presented was confusing (style).
I was taught that no matter what you may be writing, whether it’s for a biology class or an AP English class, you always need to keep this in mind: Who is your audience, and will they be able to understand your point of view by what you have written? I think keeping that same basic criteria on an interdisciplinary level will help students realize an effective way to check their writing for different subjects they approach.
I'm somewhere in the middle.
When I started reading the second section of the Williams book, I thought he was going to give us some summaries of various approaches to teaching writing. I think I this assumption was only half true. Though he did give us the types of modern rhetoric, their key aspects and the history behind them, he also really seemed to push writing across the curriculum, didn’t he?
It is funny but I actually knew that Williams was going to mention Elbow somewhere within the upcoming pages. When I got to “Romantic Rhetoric” (58) and read the description Williams gave for romantic rhetoric, “reliance on the imagination, subjectivity, freedom of thought and expression, idealization of the individual, a search for individual “truth,” and rejection of rules,” (59) I thought, “oh man, that’s Elbow.” He really is kind of a rule breaker isn’t he? Funny enough, Elbow was quoted two pages later and multiple times thereafter.
I found all of the Elbow readings interesting but always felt there was something missing. I couldn’t put my finger on it. I think Williams kind of brought it together for me. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with romantic rhetoric. He thinks that in some cases it can be helpful, especially for a struggling writer, but there needs to be something more. I would take it one step further and say that all students could benefit from romantic rhetoric or Elbow’s way of “writing without teachers” but I don’t think it is enough either. Williams says, “…they have a professional obligation at least to try to meet society’s demands for writing instruction” (67). Though we need to be expressive and learn to let our words flow, we also need to learn how to write within the boundaries of our professions so we do have to learn to at times, be outlined and organized with our writing. I’m not totally sure yet what Julie’s tactic is here. She obviously gave us two writers with completely different writing ideals. I’m hoping that this is to fuse the kind of extreme ideas of the authors into an even more effective way or writing and teaching. I guess we’ll see…
I am absolutely not saying that I am a complete Williams supporter. I was kind of taken aback by how suddenly he really showed his enthusiasm for writing across the curriculum. I do believe that the WAC model would work, particularly in high schools, if implemented throughout the country correctly. How is this ever going to happen? I also think that WAC needs to be implemented along with more open forms of writing like journaling or you are never going to be able to reach all children.
On page 68 Williams says, “Practicing self-expressive writing or journalistic writing would not be helpful if a person had to write a lab report-and vice versa.” I know we talked about this in class and there were mixed opinions on the helpfulness of regular journalistic writing when it comes to things such as labs. When we talked about this I decided that I did believe it would be helpful because it would be a sort of practice. If you practice letting “the juices flow” then all types of writing would somehow be easier. I guess I’m kind of reiterating what we already discussed but I think it all kind of ties in together…
This is getting kind of lengthy, but I am really just wondering about what the class thinks of his stating that “voice” has no place within academic writing. I had a kind of strong reaction about this one, but the more I thought about it, the more I kind of agreed (even though the statement bothered me). I’ll be looking forward to our discussion on Wednesday!
It is funny but I actually knew that Williams was going to mention Elbow somewhere within the upcoming pages. When I got to “Romantic Rhetoric” (58) and read the description Williams gave for romantic rhetoric, “reliance on the imagination, subjectivity, freedom of thought and expression, idealization of the individual, a search for individual “truth,” and rejection of rules,” (59) I thought, “oh man, that’s Elbow.” He really is kind of a rule breaker isn’t he? Funny enough, Elbow was quoted two pages later and multiple times thereafter.
I found all of the Elbow readings interesting but always felt there was something missing. I couldn’t put my finger on it. I think Williams kind of brought it together for me. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with romantic rhetoric. He thinks that in some cases it can be helpful, especially for a struggling writer, but there needs to be something more. I would take it one step further and say that all students could benefit from romantic rhetoric or Elbow’s way of “writing without teachers” but I don’t think it is enough either. Williams says, “…they have a professional obligation at least to try to meet society’s demands for writing instruction” (67). Though we need to be expressive and learn to let our words flow, we also need to learn how to write within the boundaries of our professions so we do have to learn to at times, be outlined and organized with our writing. I’m not totally sure yet what Julie’s tactic is here. She obviously gave us two writers with completely different writing ideals. I’m hoping that this is to fuse the kind of extreme ideas of the authors into an even more effective way or writing and teaching. I guess we’ll see…
I am absolutely not saying that I am a complete Williams supporter. I was kind of taken aback by how suddenly he really showed his enthusiasm for writing across the curriculum. I do believe that the WAC model would work, particularly in high schools, if implemented throughout the country correctly. How is this ever going to happen? I also think that WAC needs to be implemented along with more open forms of writing like journaling or you are never going to be able to reach all children.
On page 68 Williams says, “Practicing self-expressive writing or journalistic writing would not be helpful if a person had to write a lab report-and vice versa.” I know we talked about this in class and there were mixed opinions on the helpfulness of regular journalistic writing when it comes to things such as labs. When we talked about this I decided that I did believe it would be helpful because it would be a sort of practice. If you practice letting “the juices flow” then all types of writing would somehow be easier. I guess I’m kind of reiterating what we already discussed but I think it all kind of ties in together…
This is getting kind of lengthy, but I am really just wondering about what the class thinks of his stating that “voice” has no place within academic writing. I had a kind of strong reaction about this one, but the more I thought about it, the more I kind of agreed (even though the statement bothered me). I’ll be looking forward to our discussion on Wednesday!
An Angry But Informative Overview
As someone who's spent the last 25 years in the worlds of business and then stay-home motherhood, it was fascinating to get an overview of everything I've missed in writing instruction. What puzzles me is that Williams so often seems angry, even in the most purely descriptive portions. Since several of the instruction methods sound worthwhile or at least legit, I couldn't tell where the anger was coming from -- until the last few pages. Williams is angry because student writing skills have been in a continuing downward spiral for some years. Also, I get the impression that the teaching of writing was a hot topic in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but isn't so much any more. If that's true, it's a real shame. To me, writing is a vital communication tool, and communication is an essential skill for every aspect of life. To tackle work, health and family problems, one must be able to ask the right questions and understand what others are saying.
Getting back to the teaching methods described by Williams, I found something to like in most of them. I think teachers would do well to combine them rather than using one method exclusively.
Williams seems dismissive of "Current Traditional" but I believe studying good literature is important. How can one learn to be a good writer without studying good books? I also think there's a place for teaching correct grammar to students who don't know it because poor grammar can be a real impediment in school, work and social life. The "New Rhetoric" method of writing in stages seems pragmatic. As a liberal arts grad and business writer, I have been through those stages many times. And writing, like any task, is less overwhelming when broken down into smaller steps.
"Romantic Rhetoric" might be a good way to jump-start the writing process for kids in poor neighborhoods who are weak in writing skills but have had many dramatic, traumatic life experiences that they can write about. I also like the idea of WAC because I think writing papers in social sciences and hard sciences is a good way to master those disciplines and at the same time practice writing skills. The "Social Theoretical" model seems helpful in getting students out of the ivory tower and into the real world -- and solving the real-world problems I mentioned in my intro.
The only method I didn't see much good in is Decon. I concede that distinctions between "good" writing and "bad" writing are always going to be somewhat arbitrary. But of what use is this truth for students who need to learn how to write?
Getting back to the teaching methods described by Williams, I found something to like in most of them. I think teachers would do well to combine them rather than using one method exclusively.
Williams seems dismissive of "Current Traditional" but I believe studying good literature is important. How can one learn to be a good writer without studying good books? I also think there's a place for teaching correct grammar to students who don't know it because poor grammar can be a real impediment in school, work and social life. The "New Rhetoric" method of writing in stages seems pragmatic. As a liberal arts grad and business writer, I have been through those stages many times. And writing, like any task, is less overwhelming when broken down into smaller steps.
"Romantic Rhetoric" might be a good way to jump-start the writing process for kids in poor neighborhoods who are weak in writing skills but have had many dramatic, traumatic life experiences that they can write about. I also like the idea of WAC because I think writing papers in social sciences and hard sciences is a good way to master those disciplines and at the same time practice writing skills. The "Social Theoretical" model seems helpful in getting students out of the ivory tower and into the real world -- and solving the real-world problems I mentioned in my intro.
The only method I didn't see much good in is Decon. I concede that distinctions between "good" writing and "bad" writing are always going to be somewhat arbitrary. But of what use is this truth for students who need to learn how to write?
thoughts on contemporary rhetoric
Although the reading was still a little heavy for me this week, I found that I had the same thought running in my mind as I continued to read the chapter. On page 44, Williams writes, “As literacy skills have declined over the last several decades, many curriculum guides in our public schools also have de-emphasized the essay (and even summary book reports), on the grounds that it is too difficult for our students and have shifted the focus to personal and business letters.” And on page 63, when discussing romantic rhetoric: “Students who cannot reason sufficiently to write analytical papers or who cannot spell or punctuate nevertheless can receive high grades because assessment becomes determining whether the writing seems ‘real’.” To me, this is the dumbing down of our education system. It is no wonder that our students cannot write well. We change the system to meet them below the bar and don’t expect them to meet any high standards. We are in a society that still emphasizes everyone getting great grades without having to do any real work. We find a way to pass along students who cannot meet standards, and would rather change the education system to accommodate mediocrity than work to make our students learn. We have become a society that is so afraid to hurt a child’s feelings that we do whatever it takes to keep them happy. And then we complain that our school students are lagging beyond students in other countries.
America seems to be interested in the “wrong” stuff when it comes to education. We worry about defining statements, exclamations, questions, and commands and not about whether a student can write a logical sentence. We think that standardized testing is the greatest measure of what a student knows, yet we do not measure what should be considered important. We worry about the little things, like spelling and grammar, and not whether our students can make it in the real world. We are afraid to give children failing grades, because it might hurt their feelings. We treat children as such fragile little beings and we don’t teach them how to exist in the real world. By third grade, we expect students to be able to write out how they solve a math problem, but we never teach them how to do this. I have had to explain how I do a task, but I have never had to explain it in the minute detail the PSSA’s require. Never in my real life have I had to identify a sentence as an exclamation over a statement, but I do need to know how to write many different things. There are grocery lists, letters, emails, papers, arguments to parents about why I think my Girl Scout troop needs to go to a certain activity, newsletters, letters to the editor. They each require a different style, audience, rhetoric. I did not learn these through osmosis; I learned them by being taught different types of writing, and by practicing them over and over. If we do not start teaching our students how to approach different writing tasks differently, then we are doing them a huge disservice.
I am a big supporter of WAC. I think that it is a great way to show students that they can be writers about many different topics, in many different ways. Cooperation among teachers to further emphasize each other’s subject matter not only teaches students that these subjects are important, it reinforces the interconnectedness of everything we learn. I think that those opposed to WAC make a good point that WAC stifles a student’s individual voice (77), but this individuality could be included in the curriculum, especially in language arts class. I do not believe that WAC is designed to restrict student thinking or expression, but rather, gives students more practice writing, so that they can develop their individual voice and find the more effective means by which to express their individual voice. Personal expression can be included in areas of social studies, math, and science also, but it requires teachers to put more thought and put more work into finding the ways to include it.
Finally, I think the point about linked WAC being costly to implement was right on, and a little unfair to teachers. Williams points out that teachers would have to go to training workshops to learn how to best implement it, and want to be compensated for doing so, making the program costly. This statement portrays teachers as only wanting to do things for the money. Most teachers I know go above and beyond the general scope of their job. Most teachers became teachers because they want to make a difference in the lives of students. It is unfair to portray them as not wanting to do what’s best for their students because they wouldn’t get paid to take a workshop. We expect teachers to be on top of the best practices and ready to do what has now been determined as the best practice, but we expect them to learn how to do this on their own. We expect teachers to do their trainings on top of the work they do during school hours and after school hours, not be compensated for it, and to do it because they want to. I know that most professions pay for their employees to go to training seminars and course work that will benefit them in their job. Most of the time, employees do this training on company time, paid for with company dollars. It is not fair to expect teachers to always do more for and with less. We should have much more regard for teachers, and as a society, place more emphasis on giving teachers the training and information they need, regardless of cost, so that our students, in turn, get the best education that they deserve.
America seems to be interested in the “wrong” stuff when it comes to education. We worry about defining statements, exclamations, questions, and commands and not about whether a student can write a logical sentence. We think that standardized testing is the greatest measure of what a student knows, yet we do not measure what should be considered important. We worry about the little things, like spelling and grammar, and not whether our students can make it in the real world. We are afraid to give children failing grades, because it might hurt their feelings. We treat children as such fragile little beings and we don’t teach them how to exist in the real world. By third grade, we expect students to be able to write out how they solve a math problem, but we never teach them how to do this. I have had to explain how I do a task, but I have never had to explain it in the minute detail the PSSA’s require. Never in my real life have I had to identify a sentence as an exclamation over a statement, but I do need to know how to write many different things. There are grocery lists, letters, emails, papers, arguments to parents about why I think my Girl Scout troop needs to go to a certain activity, newsletters, letters to the editor. They each require a different style, audience, rhetoric. I did not learn these through osmosis; I learned them by being taught different types of writing, and by practicing them over and over. If we do not start teaching our students how to approach different writing tasks differently, then we are doing them a huge disservice.
I am a big supporter of WAC. I think that it is a great way to show students that they can be writers about many different topics, in many different ways. Cooperation among teachers to further emphasize each other’s subject matter not only teaches students that these subjects are important, it reinforces the interconnectedness of everything we learn. I think that those opposed to WAC make a good point that WAC stifles a student’s individual voice (77), but this individuality could be included in the curriculum, especially in language arts class. I do not believe that WAC is designed to restrict student thinking or expression, but rather, gives students more practice writing, so that they can develop their individual voice and find the more effective means by which to express their individual voice. Personal expression can be included in areas of social studies, math, and science also, but it requires teachers to put more thought and put more work into finding the ways to include it.
Finally, I think the point about linked WAC being costly to implement was right on, and a little unfair to teachers. Williams points out that teachers would have to go to training workshops to learn how to best implement it, and want to be compensated for doing so, making the program costly. This statement portrays teachers as only wanting to do things for the money. Most teachers I know go above and beyond the general scope of their job. Most teachers became teachers because they want to make a difference in the lives of students. It is unfair to portray them as not wanting to do what’s best for their students because they wouldn’t get paid to take a workshop. We expect teachers to be on top of the best practices and ready to do what has now been determined as the best practice, but we expect them to learn how to do this on their own. We expect teachers to do their trainings on top of the work they do during school hours and after school hours, not be compensated for it, and to do it because they want to. I know that most professions pay for their employees to go to training seminars and course work that will benefit them in their job. Most of the time, employees do this training on company time, paid for with company dollars. It is not fair to expect teachers to always do more for and with less. We should have much more regard for teachers, and as a society, place more emphasis on giving teachers the training and information they need, regardless of cost, so that our students, in turn, get the best education that they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)