[The format is irregular--this page is still being worked on as of 11/05--but I just discovered three past classes' research preparation and wanted to make it available to the class of '05.]

Popkin, Cathy.  "Essay: A Plea to the Wielders of Academic  PRIVATE

     Dis(of)course."  College English.  54:2 (February 1992)

     173 ‑ 181.

 

     Cathy Popkin uses this essay to express her outrage at the

decline of the tentative and indefinite in academic discourse.

Her main focus is on the phrase, "of course," and all of its

linguistic cousins like, "Needless to say...," and, "the whole

problem of...."  She derides the habit of many of her colleagues

of throwing these phrases around, all of which can be used to

positive effect, but which are all too often abused.  Well‑placed

uses of such phrases allow the author to inform those who may not

be acquainted with the material, while allowing those who are to

reaffirm their sagacity and establishing the author's own

credentials.  It minimizes the "risk of seeming to reassert the

obvious," and can be used as "shorthand for a well‑established

body of knowledge," without having to go into details.  In this

usage it also establishes a particular fact as being previous

knowledge, as opposed to the new information the author will

present.  Unfortunately, she sees that all too often these

phrases are used simply to give the appearance of superior

knowledge, with the dangerous implications that has in any

learning environment, in particular between graduate students and

professors.  When "of course" is used, it "silences both forceful

dissent and timid questions," preventing the ignorant from asking

for an explanation for fear of being revealed as dumb, or worse,

a "fraud" who does not belong with such prestigious company.

Often, students subjected to this kind of "verbal terrorism"

adopt the same postures, but with no real knowledge to back them

up, anxious all the while that their ignorance will be revealed.

It also helps preserve the "scholastic hierarchy" by establishing

superiority on a topic.  Such strategies are also used to

introduce alternate viewpoints in a way that implies that any

evidence they contain is not even worth contemplating.  Worse

than thus dismissing objections is "the 'of course' that disavows

them altogether, presenting it's own 'truth' as beyond debate."

Although she seems to despise this academic one‑up‑manship she

does note that, in some fields at least, the trend is reversing

and some scholars are reverting to the tentative "perhaps" and

"suppose," and derailing the "obvious."

     Popkin shows us how even good intentions can have negative

consequences.  Perhaps some professors who behave as those she

outlines do use "of course" to include their students in their

discussions, as well as amongst themselves to reinforce their

common knowledge.  However, it is easy to believe that

over‑reliance on such techniques is just so much hot air.

Including background information in the same sentences as "new"

statements may not only a way of anticipating questions that a

reader (or listener) may have, a way of presenting the evidence

they must know.  It can also be a stylistic consideration.

Surely the preceding two sentences could have been one, but they

present the same information in a way that I, as the writer,

consider more aesthetically pleasing.  This article certainly

seems to have a great deal to do with how carefully we, as peer

tutors, would have to watch how we word our opinions in order to

prevent the sorts of implications Popkin brings up.  It is very

easy to slip into the role of knowing the "truth."  I know this

because in the process of writing this, I have had to stop myself

several times on the verge of writing just such an absolutist

statement as she criticizes as being unconstructive.  She

considers knowledge a "commodity," and "of course" as a ploy to

capitalize on that fact without necessarily having gone through

the process of actually acquiring it.  This being the case, it

shouldn't be surprising that people are starting to debunk it.

                                        Stephanie Brown 9/12/93

 

 

Young, Art.  "College Culture and the Challenge of Collaboration."  The Writing Center Journal.  13.1 (1992):  3-15.

 

     This article makes the argument that, in the right circumstances, collaboration in the college curriculum can be quite effective and beneficial for all involved.  The present belief is that student collaboration on the college level is destructive and to our American college and university system as it goes against the American values of individualism and competition. 

     Collaboration is also seen as an option only for lazy teachers and, without caution, will lead "to bad teaching and students being shortchanged" (4).  However, Young believes that an increase in the frequency of group work, activities, and projects can benefit all individuals in many ways.  The author argues that the reason collaboration is seen as a threat is because it is misunderstood.  A part of this misunderstanding stems from the belief that all collaboration works in all circumstances.  Certain projects are more successful when collaboration takes place, however, collaboration is not successful or effective in all circumstances.  Young tells us to be very careful to understand "the local culture of our particular campus" (7) before trying to integrate collaboration.

     Young presents five assumptions in order to help us better understand the benefits and limits of collaboration.  These include:  (1) Collaboration helps teach students what we know how to do, not just what we know.  (2) Collaboration succeeds when every individual as well as the group as a whole succeeds.  (3) Collaboration invites students to actively participate in teaching and learning. (4) Collaboration does not function in the abstract. (5) Collaboration involves taking risks.

     I believe this article helps to make clear for me the importance of collaboration in certain circumstances.  The fact that collaboration occurs in nearly every profession leads me to believe that at some point in my future career as an elementary education major, I will join in on some form of collaboration-- whether it be team teaching or co-authoring tests.  In this sense, I would like to practice in working with others now, rather than being in a position later on where I have had no previous experience in collaboration.

     The article was careful to state the limitations of collaboration.  In this, I realize that it is not always the best idea to collaborate, and that different groups will collaborate in different ways and in different intensities.  It is determined by the group how much group work will balance with individual ideas.  Some projects can only be completely successfully with collaboration, while other projects are more successful when done individually.  In any case, I think it is important to find a balance in any college curriculum between collaboration and independent work.  Kerry Flanigan, 9/13/93

 

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice.  The Prose of the World "The Indirect Language" (pg. 47-113).  Trans. John O'Neil.  Illinois:   NorthWestern University Press, 1991.

 

Maurice Merleau-Ponty opens his discussion on language and its use as a tool for communication by placing the utmost importance and responsibility of writing on the individual author.  The writer is given the task of organizing and manipulating the structures of language: words, phrases and grammar, into a work through which his individual life experiences shine through.  Merleau-Ponty compares language to visual art in that there exists a plenum of either meanings of words, or of colors and shapes on a canvas.  Thus, by focusing either on one meaning of a word, or on one angle of a picture, meaning and significance arise.  This allows the writer an immense power and responsibility, as words have a sophistic and self-concealing nature.  The writer must choose his meaning and convey it the best that he can.  However, his choice does not sediment meaning as Merleau-Ponty describes language as  being "open".  This openness is displayed in how merely rereading a piece of writing  can completely alter the interpretation of its meaning.  This reveals the author's style which is what the reading audience detects while reading a work.  Style draws the process of writing inward, making it interpersonal and subjective.

     The physical motion of writing is actually the presence of style making itself manifest through the vehicle of the body.  The physical action of composing is merely a fountain pen through which the constituted essences of an author's style flow out.  The writer's "goal" is to bring forth her style through her words.   The power of prose is that the speaker is joined to her audience and, together, they are swept towards new meanings.  This brings the writer out of the shell of her own mind, and out into the world.  Through the interaction of the writer and her audience, significance arises.  The paradox the author encounters is that by creating meaningful language, she is also destroying it.  Old meanings are replaced by new focus, and the author is allowed to come through the words into the world, joined to a cooperative audience.

     Using a philosophical approach in the study of the processes involved in writing provides a fresh outlook on a subject that is usually pursued in a scientific manner.  This method of explanation could have a positive effect on students who prefer to find the power of writing within themselves and not as a product of society, or as the result of a preconstructed reality.  This approach is mostly expressivist which Faigley describes as how "the individual discovers the self through language".  There are also elements of cognitivist methodology in that there is the interaction with the other as the audience, as well as Marxist philosophy in that writing is an extremely effective tool of power.  The role of the tutor or teacher would be to help the student see that the power to create through writing lies within them, waiting to be tapped into.  The tutor illuminates the possibilities and finds the most effective way to help the student see writing as a chance for self expression and actualization.  Explaining the writing process in this manner allows for the student to gain confidence and pride in that they are made aware of the awesome tool of writing that they themselves possess.     Shannon Mussett, 9/13/93

 

                              

                                          

Corbett, Edward P.  "My Write of Passage:  From the Quill Pen to the Personal Computer."  Computers and Composition 8:1  81-88.

 

     Corbett lauds the wonders of the computer in this essay about his personal trials and triumphs as he learns about word processing.  His wariness of the computer stemmed from the common humanist "fear of the machine as a 'dehumanizing' force."  The author describes his progression from manual typewriter to word processor, and the consequent realization of the changes his writing undergoes with the advent of the new technology.  Corbett finds that he prepares less for writing with the advent of the computer, because seeing the easily-deletable words on the screen stimulates his thought processes more.  He takes more delight in expanding from vague notions to brilliant ideas, and he finds the computer "helps me to discover my content and thesis and organization and verbalization."  He also realizes the difference in his writing in respect to revisions.  Rather than keep with the traditional route of revising after writing an entire article, Corbett finds his revisions are constant because of the convenience of the computer.  He easily swaps sentences or rearranges paragraphs, and makes most of his writing changes page by page rather than all at the end.  The author finds that the capabilities of a personal computer are numerous, and considers himself a "grateful and enthusiastic supporter of the computer."

     Corbett heralds the dawn of a new writing age as he discusses the changes word processing brings to his work.  His remarks about the differences in the preplanning and revising processes fit for writers across the board, from students to professionals.  Planning tends to be simpler and less structured, and people take the opportunity to write their thoughts as quickly as they come to mind and grapple with reorganization later.  Writing revisions are less time-consuming and quite effortless, which gives the author the chance to carefully reread their work and spend their energy on the cognitive part of the process.  This in turn brings writing to the hierarchical state the Flower and Hayes article discusses, in which writing becomes less programmed, linear, and predictable.  The prewriting, writing, and revising processes are continuous throughout the paper with the help and facility of a computer, which allows better brainstorming and exploration of new topic routes within the writing.  Computers alleviate the physical strain of writing for the author, and help writers find a better way to convey their myriad of thoughts to the reader.  Christine Kucia, September 13, 1993

 

 

 

Hilbert, Betsy S.  "It WAs A Dark and Nasty Night It Was A Dark and You Would Not Believe How Dark It Was a Hard Beginning."  College Composition and Communication 43:1 (February 1992), 75-80.

 

     Hilbert's article focuses on some questions and fears that student writers encounter when writing introductions and opening lines.  Every semester English composition professors are bombarded with the questions, "How do we start?"   Hilbert believes "how to begin writing" and "how to write beginnings" are inseparably interwoven.   Trust in their work, severe self-consciousness, and a fear of betraying majestic preconceptions of their work, are a few of the major blocks that inhibit a student's writing.  Students who learn to trust their work will have an easier time beginning then those who fear the "red pen." Insecure students often cling to the "rigid, five paragraph, thesis-directed format."  Hilbert, however, argues that the fear of deviation from this unbending structure limits the creative possibilities in a student's work.  The only certain piece of advice that Hilbert feels she can offer her students is, "Write an opening paragraph that makes me want to read the rest of your essay." By trusting in his or her own work and believing in himself or herself the student will be able to write a beginning and begin writing.

     This article questions methods of teaching that implement, rigid, unquestionable techniques that allow very little room for self-exploration and expression.  The article by Flower and Hayes augments criticism for Gordon Rohman's Pre-write/Write/Re-write model of the composition process, and adds that "they (stage models) offer an inadequate account of the more intimate, moment-by-moment intellectual process of composing.  If a student writer feels bound to these rigid structures, they will never allow themselves the freedom to explore internally beyond these external boundaries.  As Hilbert mentions, the student must trust himself/herself in order to open up to his/her own ideas.  Unfortunately, in the case of rigid models, the student learns to rely on the structure of his/her paper, more than on his/her individual thought processes. 

     According to Hilbert, first impressions are of extreme importance.  Not only does she mean this in terms of a catchy opening line, but also in terms of how writers feel about their writing competence.  Many students have a deep mistrust of their ability.  If, as they write, they are constantly reminding themselves of past failures, they will have great difficulty in moving ahead.  Fear will discourage them from developing as writers and will inhibit any existing possibilities for creative expression.  However, with encouragement from a peer-councilor who reminds the student of his or her own potential, the student will be able to begin developing the self-trust needed to explore his/her thoughts and writing. By acting as a guide and encourager instead of a proof-reader or instructor, the peer-councilor forces the student to think for himself/herself.  Once the student observes that his/her improvement is a result of his/her thought, he/she will be able to develop the self-trust needed to write on his/her own. Dani Salzer, 9/14/93

 

 

Fleckenstein, Kristie S.  "An Appetite for Coherence: Advising and Fulfilling Desire."  College Composition and Communication.  23:1 (Febrary 1992): 81-7.

 

     According to Kristie Fleckenstein, Director of Composition at Perdue University, revision in order is the difference between coherence and incoherence in written work.  She explains that, "writers may provide linguistic cues, but it is the readers who fill the gap between ideas by building relationships that bridge ideas, and thereby create their sense of order."  Therefore, the author must step out of his or her shoes and examine the passage as a reader.  They must become aware of their audience after they have written a work, and examine how they create coherent meaning as their audience might.  Then they can examine their work for problems of incoherence. 

     Fleckenstein goes on to explain her strategy for bringing students to this state of audience awareness.  She begins by reading an essay with which it is impossible for the reader to "fill the gaps between ideas."  She then practices peer editing by examining the incoherent work.  Next she has students edit small samples of the work of their peers.  Working their way up to larger works through these steps, Fleckenstein weans her students from depending on the judgement of others to relying on their own instincts. 

     In their article, A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing, Flower and Hayes discourage the revision stage.  According to their theory this is one of the steps that a "good writer" does not take.  However Flower and Hayes theory is that their are only two categories of writers, good and bad, and their system does not to develop better writers. 

     I believe that Fleckenstein has a very interesting idea, and valuable suggestions, however I have doubts that her exact method will be successful in every case.  She provides some interesting exercises that certainly deserve experimentation.  I much prefer her theory to the discouraging beliefs of Flower and Hayes.  Fleckenstein's approach of making what was once incoherent understandable through this extreme form of audience awareness could bring out "good" things from a writer Flowers and Hayes would term as "bad."  Amy Reiley, 9/14/93

 

Behm, Richard.  "Ethical Issues in Peer Tutoring: A defense of      Collaborative Learning."  The Writing Center Journal 10.1      (1989):3-12. 

 

     Because of a complaint that the tutoring program violated a university's plagiarism policy, the director of the program, Richard Behm, questions and explores the ethical issues of collaborative learning.  The traditional approach to education discourages collaboration and instead emphasizes sorting, grading, and certifying students.  However, Behm argues that this approach actually perverts the learning process by discouraging teachers and students to share knowledge in the pursuit of truth.  Instead, schools assign grades to students and issue credentials without concern for what has been learned and how students have developed.  In describing an effective writing center, Behm stresses that its success depends on the amount of collaboration between the tutor and the tutee.  Furthermore, he states that writing is not an individual act; writers absorb influences from others throughout the composing process.  Professional writers receive advice and direction from colleagues, friends, and editors, yet inexperienced students are denied the opportunity to develop through such interaction.  Thus Behm concludes that the traditional theory of education, which is based upon adults merely transmitting information to students, essentially contradicts the aim of the writing center, which centers around growth through the process of collaboration.  Although by traditional societal and educational standards the collaborative efforts of the writing center may seem unethical, Behm asserts and clarifies the ethical and essential nature of collaboration in writing.

     In an initial questioning of ethical standards, Behm confronts his doubts about the rights and wrongs of collaborative learning.  But his approach to the essay proves his dedication to the collaborative process.  Behm defends and justifies collaboration by first offering accounts of collaborative learning in history as well as examples of the natural tendency of students to work together as peer tutors.  Thus he views today's standards of education through Rousseau's perspective, perceiving them as falsely constructed obstacles to the Emilian natural experience of education.  Behm recognizes the societal pressures to grade and rank students, but recoils from using those faulty standards as an excuse.  The "real-world" to Behm is not what is beyond one's reach, but rather what is at one's fingertips.  Thus rather than refuting the social theory of composing, Behm embraces and upholds the idea that social interaction is essential to the writing process.  To Behm the writing process is a "kind of communal struggle to make meaning, to clarify, to communicate." (6)  He takes a cognitive process perspective as well by focusing on the situational nature of writing and the problems of facing unknown variables such as the type of audience.  In vehement defense of the discoveries and sharing inherent in the writing process, Behm firmly declares not only the ethical nature of collaboration, but further attests that "collaboration is a natural part of the social act of writing." (9)  Thus with earnest persuasion he switches from his defensive assertions to a more aggressive conclusion that the unethical approach would be to deny students the access to collaborative learning, since it is the natural process by which one develops.  Meagan Ledendecker, 9/13/93

 

 

 

 

 

Reither, James A and Douglas Vipond. "Writing as Collaboration."

     College English 51:8 (1989); 855‑866

 

     Reither and Vipond propose that the writing process is

fundamentally collaborative in nature,deriving their thesis from

a case study involving "Evaluations in Literary Reading," an

article by Russell Hunt and Douglas Vipond.  The authors identify

three forms of collaboration: short term "coauthoring", "peer

editing," and long term "knowledge making." While the first two

forms of collaboration, "coauthoring" and "workshopping" (i.e.

peer editing), form supportive microcosms within a discourse

community, neither is imperative to writing.  The third form,

however, "knowledge making" is fundamental to progress in any

given field.   

     The authors also provide guidelines under these three

categories to design courses for collaborative writing. While the

benefits of coauthorship are efficiency and quality of writing

through cooperative teamwork, workshopping promotes self esteem

by giving writers a sense of expertise on a subject and value to

the group, according to Reither and Vipond.  The authors finally

propose to make the course a "knowledge making" process through

the investigation of a research question.  Writing in this sense

is an ongoing conversation in which each study and article

published adds to a pool of knowledge for further research,

study, evaluation, and discovery.  Reither and Vipond conclude

that writing is a goal based process.  Writing does not exist as

anything other than collaboration because it enables a community

to change, elicit change and progress.

     Its a funny thing that the course Reither and Vipond propose

bear remarkable resemblance to English 221. After reading this

article, I'm beginning to wonder if my role in our final group

research projects is that of a guinea pig in an experiment

testing the validity of the collaboration theory.  Although I

will evaluate the article now, it will be interesting to see how

my views change or remain stable after completing the course.   

     While writing as collaboration is a valid exercise to focus

on the forces of human interaction, the writing process cannot be

pinpointed to this one viewpoint.  One cannot ignore the

introspection a writer goes through as a human with emotions and

opinions, as the students of English 221 underwent in our "How Do

I Write?" essays. As Alice Brand suggests in "The Why of

Cognition: Emotion and the Writing Process," the affect controls

one's writing as much or moreso than any cognitive (or social)

phenomena.  Any knowledge making that occurs through the writing

process can only be valuable to an individual through personal

interpretation, for "it is in emotion that sense finds value

(Brand 157)".  In turn, Flower and Hayes place emphasis on the

inventive power of the writer, "who is able to explore ideas, to

develop, act on, test, and regenerate his or her own goals"

(Flower & Hayes 386)."  The collaborative writing process is an

interesting study of group dynamics, but it ignores the ecstasy

of self‑expression: the personal satisfaction one feels when one

has completed an essay formed in one's own mind, regardless of

outside influences.(Stephanie Donlon 9/12/93)

 

 

 

Hairston, Maxine. "Different Products, Different Processes: A Theory About Writing." College Composition and     Communication. 37:4 (1986): 442-452.

 

     Maxine Hairston draws together the work of the members of the "romantic" school of writing and the "classical" school in her hypothesis regarding three different, flexible classes of writing.  While she suggests that writers of the romantic persuasion discover their meaning while writing and classicists act as strategists making their plans and carrying them out, she believes both to be of equal value and encourages students to take both approaches to writing.  Hairston divides writing into classes I, II and III: I.Message writing; II. Self-limiting writing which has a clear end in sight at the outset; and III. Reflective writing which requires the act of discovery during the writing process.  Hairston notes from personal experience and the experience of her colleagues that Class I writing is so routine it often escapes notice.  Class II writing, informative in nature, is essential to the functioning of society.  While it is not necessarily easy writing, it is an essential academic skill.  She qualifies Class III writing as different from Class II, but not necessarily better, although it may tend to take a superior aspect in our culture because of its "reflective," "original," "probing" nature.  It is also undertaken in a variety of situations from government to architecture. 

     Hairston suggests eliminating the academic bickering over methods of teaching writing by distinguishing between Class II and Class III writing, placing equal importance on each class and encouraging students to do both.  Finally, good writing teachers must be adaptable and flexible in their response to a students writing, reflecting the type of writing, whether self-limiting or exploratory in nature.

     After reading all the assertions and denials of various writing process theorists, it is good to come across a synthesis like Hairston's of the dichotomy of views on the "writing process."  She makes the cognitive process and expressive theorists sound equally ridiculous in their adamant stances by drawing all of their ideas into her hypothesis.  According to Hairston, there is no reason why a writer cannot have the best of both worlds.   Her position reflects Harris' view of one and multi-draft writers; namely, that  "There is a real danger on imposing a single "ideal" composing style on students" (Harris 190.)  Hairston defines good teachers as "pragmatists who don't totally accept.. . any single prescription for teaching. . . ."(Hairston 452).  One problem which she does not fully address is how a teacher is to grade her students writing objectively.  If the writing process is that fluid, how are they to decipher where to draw the line between reflective writing and rambling, for instance?  If good writing teachers "take whatever works whenever they can find it," then how are they to devise a system of grading (Hairston 452)?  It appears that writing teachers who are truly dedicated to fairness, objectivity and the total formation of the emerging writer definitely have their work cut out for them.

Stephanie Donlon 9/26/93

 

 

McQuade, Donald.  "Living In-and On-the Margins."  College Composition and Communication  Vol.43, No. 1, (February 1992): 11-23.

 

     In his article, "Living In-and On-the Margins", Donald McQuade illustrates the importance of expression through writing. To do this, he tells the story of his mother, who on her death bed is unable to speak, and so she writes.  Adelina Pisano was never a woman to attract attention to herself, her son informs us, but she is desperately in need of communicating her experiences with others.  She lives "in the margins" as her very existence now is in many ways being determined by external factors.  By writing, Adelina asserts herself and affirms her life.  "It seems as if she is writing to keep herself alive", her son tells us.  McQuade also shares other stories of women for whom writing was a life matter.  McQuade summarizes his article best when explains that the story of his mother is "about writing as a matter of life and death...about the dignity and importance of what we try to do each day in our public and private conversations about the importance of the work of words in the lives of our students and in our own lives" (11). 

 

     The experience of McQuade's mother illustrates his expressivist view of writing very clearly.  With McQuade, we are allowed to discover the integrity and importance of writing as the story of his mother unfolds.  By using a couple of other small anecdotes, the different ways in which writing can be a form expression, and even a release for some, is more fully explored.   I particularly liked the phrase he quoted from Francine du Plessix Gray, "I write out of a desire for revenge against reality".   Just as McQuade writes about his personal experience with the power of communication and writing, while reading his essay, it is impossible not to be moved by the power of his own words.  Laura Manfre, 9/21

 

Waismann, F.  "Meaning", Readings in the Philosophy of Language.  Ed. Rosenberg, Jay and Travis, Charles.  New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1971: 395-403.

 

     For the most part, Waismann's essay on meaning can be broken into about three separate parts.  He centers not necessarily on just the philosophical side to meaning, which in itself is a life time topic, but on the actual basic meaning of meaning. 

     In his first division, "Substantive and Substance", Waismann attacks the philosophical definition of meaning by stating that philosophers misuse the actual word "meaning" and distort their intentions so that the word itself changes definitions.  He also criticizes philosophy's attempt to interpret the word out of its context, rather than keeping in bounds with the regular english definition.

     In his second division, "Meanings of the Word Meaning", Waismann explains just how hard it is to pin down as to what exactly meaning is.  He lists nine uses for the word "meaning" and then points out the fact that the reader will, "gain some idea of the many senses in which they are used (Waismann 397)."

     In his third division "Meaning and Mental Image", Waismann wrestles with the many examples of the mental pictures that can be seen when seeing meaning.  After concluding that there is no mental image that can describe meaning, Waismann concludes that meaning is a concept that cannot be understood and thus the word can only be visualized from the words around it.

     Waismann's essay is confusing and contradictory.  Although he tries to get away from the philosophical aspects of meaning, and its many complexities, It is almost impossible for him to escape philosophy's grasp upon the term.  It's almost humorous to watch as Waismann turns one corner, only to find a slew of stumbling blocks from which he can't simply run over.  To say "meaning is simply a word" is like stating that "Philosophy is simply a subject."  There is no end to the circles that can be drawn round and round the topic.    Gavin Patashnick, 9/27/93

 

 

Runciman, Lex.  "Fun?"  College English, v. 53, no. 2 (Feb. 1991) pp.156-162.

 

     In this article, Runciman considered the fact that in the teaching and study of writing, considerably more emphasis is given to the problems it causes rather than the enjoyment it can bring.  He wonders what motivation there is, given this situation, to want to write.  He is spurred on in this question by Harris' article, "The Composing Behaviors of One- and Multi-Draft Writers."  This article, he notes, puts all writing in terms of problem-solving, following the school of cognitive-process theory, and most textbooks emphasize the hard work involved in writing.  The question therefore arises that if writing is hard work, confusing, and complicated, why do people write?  Harris asserts that single-draft writers are more likely to put off starting their writing because they are less likely to enjoy it. Runciman raises the concern that in studying the process involved in writing that there is the danger of forgetting how writers feel.  The research of Flower and Hayes and their colleagues have "demystified writing activities," giving students practical writing strategies, assuming that success brings with it satisfaction.  Emotions being so undefinable and indefinite it is difficult to codify pleasure, and therefore difficult to place where it falls in the writing process.  Furthermore, different people find what pleasure they do find in different parts of the writing process.  And many people set the enjoyment of writing on a higher plane, something which is more common among those writers deemed "loftier," or only those with strong literary impulses, like poets and creative writers.  Runciman pictures the "literacy wars," in which the teaching of writing is a series of struggles which tend to overpower the successes.  He fears that in teaching writing teachers have given their students the impression that writing is supposed to b a problematic, difficult, and negative thing.  Simply being aware of the pleasures of writing can help a person work through the frustrations.

     I found many things I agree with in this article.  For one, I have found pleasures in writing in many of ways Runciman mentioned: finding just the right phrase, having created order out of a chaos of ideas, seeing the page (or screen) fill with words.  Often, when frustrated or stuck for ideas, I hit random keys on the keyboard or type nonsense phrases to myself just to see the words appear on the screen.  In high school there is very little mention of any kind of pleasure related to writing, and it seems as if a person doesn't already know that writing can be fun, having learned from some other source or figured it out on their own, they receive little or no encouragement to find out.  These are probably the people who dread writing English papers, and would rather do their math homework, while others look forward to them.  It is true that the concept of what is fun is very different for different people, but to at least be exposed to the idea that something can be fun can help.  So often writing is presented as something repetitious - a rote, mechanical function that is to be regurgitated when needed, like mathematic formulas - instead of something which changes and becomes something different every time.  Granted that problems get more mention because they are somthing that needs to be worked out (if it ain't broke, don't fix it, the squeaky wheel gets the grease), but the positive things should not be overlooked.  In young children, the praise they receive for their early writing efforts (provided they receive any encouragement at all) is probably a source of pleasure for them, but in upper grades this translates as grades, those stolid indicators of worth, which for many people is undoubtedly a source of anxiety more than anything.  I think it really depends on what kind of teachers you have; even one teacher at some point who encouraged creative writing or showed the pleasures of composing can make all the difference. 

 

Booth, T. Y. "I. A. Richards and the Composing Process." College Composition and Communication 37:4 (1986);453-465.

 

     T. Y. Booth's main consideration is with the ultimate question: "Who, in what situation, is here talking to whom and trying to say what" (Booth 453)?  His thesis is bases on I.A. Richard's dealings with language as it is most commonly used, or the contextual nature of the word.  Booth offer's two of Richard's insights into language.  First, the job of language is not to "package" meanings we already know, but to achieve new meanings.  Booth agrees with Richards on the theory that language helps people to achieve meanings at which we could not otherwise arrive.  The greatest danger to composers is the assumption that composing is a  means of formulating in the mind what one wants to express and then finding the words to convey the meanings.  Language points out the memory of things that exist, things of the imagination, and kinds, sorts, or types which can be pointed out only with words. 

     Secondly, Booth considers how words work to achieve their meanings.  Words are affected by the context that draws them up and that which they make on their own.  Composition, he suggests, start with the writers purpose and his process involves feed-forward and feedback, a constant process in which words change within the context of other words, phrases, and paragraphs.  Meanings are gained from "interinanimations," or interactions, among words.  Most of what writers finally decide they want to say can only be found as they find the words that will say it, which leads to controlling the process more effectively.  Booth finds that a word without context has too many possible meanings.  In fact, the primary job of language is to act as "an instrument for the purpose and control of" those meanings that exist only in language.

     Booth's article has flaws and exposes flaws. One problem Booth poses to me is over the evaluation of papers in an ethnically, socioeconomically diverse class whose English differs in accordance with their familial background.  Should there be one standard of English usage or should society and schools accept offshoots like Black vernacular as correct and valid?  While black English may be perfectly acceptable in one ethnic community, the reality of the workplace and the upper-echelons of society do not accept dialects as proper English, a subject Joseph Harris explores in regard to "public language" and "private identity" (Harris 274).  

     Also, Booth's assertions cannot be taken in absolutes.  It appears that Richards and Booth advocate multi-draft writing as Muriel Harris explains it in her essay on "One and Multi-draft Writers."  This philosophy of constant "eddying," working and reworking as the final meaning of a draft materializes with the interplay between words, would be deadly to the single draft writer who sits down to the computer the night before a paper is due.  Other suggestions are needed to put Harris' ideas into practice for the single draft writer.  As a multi-drafter, I am at a loss. The single drafter is an alien being to me whose process boggles my mind.

     Drawing from I.A. Richards for his hypothesis, T.Y. Booth exposes one of the flaws of cognitive research: the isolation of the part from the whole.  In defense of the contextual nature of language, Lester Faigley paraphrases Bakhtin, "words carry with them the places where they have been" (Faigley 46.)  (For some reason this phrase conjures up clips of classic films such as "Casablanca.")  This eloquent phrase is highly relevant to the query of Booth's composition: "Who, in what situation, is here talking to whom and trying to say what (Booth 453).  In support of Booth's assertions Faigley also notes that Patricia Bizzel "claims the separation of words from ideas distorts the nature of composing" (Faigley 46).  I suppose, then that T.Y. Booth and subsequently I.A. Richards would not agree with Flower and Hayes' cognitive theory which states that language comes after ideas are formed.  It looks like were back to the old "Chicken and Egg" philosophical debate.  Also relevant to Booth's assertions is Vygotsky's study of language as a historical and cultural process, in which a child "acquires not only the words of language but the intentions carried by those words and the situations implied by them" (Faigley 46).  Evidently, we are back to the social process model.  And I thought (hoped!) after reading Maxine Hairston's "Different Products, Different Processes: A Theory About Writing" we were out of the composing theory woods and into the open field of synthesized and integrated theories! I am feeling deeply entrenched in all this writing muck.  In one sense, I am like a pig delighting in wallowing in the composing mire and yet, I can't wait for that long awaited rain (a solution!) to wash me clean.  I have an inkling that the holy waters of "eternal solution" may never rain down as new technology and new theorists (into whose society I will be inducted--heaven help us!--through the final collaborative project) arrive with fresh muck to cover me.

Stephanie Donlon -AB 3- 10/2/93

    

 

Davis, Kevin.  "Responding to Writers: a Multi-Variate Approach to Peer Interaction."  The Writing Center Journal 10:2 Spring/Summer 1990:67-71.

 

     Kevin Davis is concerned with an apparent inflexibility in tutoring styles that tutors use.  This concern arose when he tape recorded in class peer groups as they discussed drafts of papers and realized that each individual had a specific role within the discussion that he/she was unwilling to diverge from.  At a writing center conference Davis noticed that audience members refused to change their "...in-grained tutoring approaches, even if adherence to the approach would cause a student to fail..."(67)  As a writing center director Davis also noticed that reports about the various tutors under his direction were consistent.  If one report said the tutor was tough all the reports said the tutor was tough.  Davis feels that this inflexibility towards tutoring arises for several different reasons.  First of all he points out the fact that problem solving is easiest when approached the same way every time.  Secondly the training tutors receive tends to center around one particular response to writing.  Thirdly and finally, by choosing likes and dislikes about the many theories, the tutor narrows the field of ideas from which to draw upon for tutoring.

     In response to this lack of adaptability of tutors towards the needs of their tutees Davis has devised what he calls a multi-variate approach to writing or the Chinese restaurant menu approach.  He lays out three major areas of tutoring, Conversation Focus, Methodological Approach, and Interactive Style, with various subheadings under each division.  He feels that one subheading from each division should be chosen for each tutoring session and that it should be individualized on the basis of the needs of the tutee not the needs of the tutor.  Under Conversation Focus Davis notes that peer groups tend to remain centered on what the writer is trying to do(writer centered) and respond by explaining what the reader understands(reader centered).  He believes that his tutors jump right in on the meaning and organization of the paper which is a text centered focus.  Writers using the writing center are more concerned with a convention focus to a tutoring session that is usually comes down to basic proofreading.  A fifth conversation focus that none of Davis' groups seem to use is process centered.  The four methodological approaches that Davis lists are person needs, social negotiation, ethical considerations, and pedagogical philosophies.  In his experience, Davis says that tutees tend to approach a tutoring session on personal needs whereas tutors approach it form a pedagogical approach and neither one of them consider or are perhaps not even aware of the other approaches.  Davis feels that interactive styles should move across the spectrum of authoritarian/assertive, balanced/conversant, and passive/receptive.

     By asking tutors to leave behind their patterned response to tutoring, Davis has created an extremely challenging situation for writing tutors.  This system forces tutors to raise their own confidence levels so that they can be free enough to perceive the need for different approaches in a tutoring session.  This concept applies to the article "We're All Basic Writers: Tutors Talking About Writing Apprehension." At one point the author, Wendy Bishop, mentions that "blocked writers were often unable to enter into the composing process because they were being inflexible in their writing strategies, misapplying rules, using inappropriate rules, or applying precise, algorithmic rules"(33).  I believe that it is possible to compare a blocked writer to an unsuccessful tutoring session because they mirror one another in inflexibility and misapplication of rules.  It is important to see that the tutoring and writing processes are linked because they are both working toward a similar end: the effective transcription of thoughts to paper.  The deference for the writer in the tutoring session is that it adds the element of a personified reader in the form of the tutor.  The tutor in turn must use sensitivity to help the writer through the various hurdles in writing so that they can become low apprehension writers.  It seems important for the tutor to realize that they may need to use methods that they feel are wrong(especially on a personal level) but which are extremely helpful to the writer.  During our future class readings it will be important to particularly aware of how important it is to remain open-minded about new ideas.--Edith Howell, September 29, 1993

 

 

D'Agostino, Karen Nilson and Sandra D. Varone.  "Interacting with Basic Writers in the Computer Classroom."  Computers and   Composition 8:3  39-49.

 

     This article focuses on an experiment conducted by the authors with their basic writing class at the local community college.  All of the students composed at computers during each class period, and the D'Agostino and Varone offered suggestions and corrections for the text on the screen, rather than writing the corrections on printed copies of the students' compositions.  The goals of the course were not only to improve the writing styles of the members of the class, but also to show the students the usefulness computers have in the composing and revising processes.  The authors learned as well through the changes they made in their teaching approaches as the class composed on the computers.  Primarily, interaction at each stage of the writing process enabled students to learn different (and usually helpful) techniques to enhance their compositions.  In the early stages of writing the teachers proffered words of encouragement for the writers, and simply acted as "interested readers."  After the composition of rough drafts, the teachers also assisted with the organizational aspects of the papers, and acted as "resources persons" in learning how to use the computer as a tool in the writing process.  In the final stages of drafting, they taught the writers how to effectively proofread their own work and realize typical mistakes in order to learn from their own writing styles.  Throughout, the authors utilized the ease and simplicity of the computer to teach the students better writing habits.  In the end, the teachers realized the power the computer had to aid basic writers, as well as the differences the new tool made in teacher-student interaction in the composing process.

     This experiment not only studied the effect of the computer as a physical tool for the writing process, but it also shed some light on the psychological differences that composing on computers created for the students.  The group studied was mixed in terms of writing abilities, and included ESL, learning disabled, and below-average writers.  The use of the computer in the writing process, as well as the unique interaction between the teachers and students, produced an atmosphere conducive to easing the apprehensions of the writers.  Multiple drafting and learning organizational strategies, which are thought to be attributes for low apprehension writers, were encouraged in the test group of students.  The ease with which the computer could assist in these categories helped the students become comfortable with writing as well. 

     In addition, the constant presence of and reading of their compositions by the teachers enhanced the students' sense of audience and purpose for their writing.  Difficulties in composing may arise when writers are uncertain for whom they are writing, but the receptive and helpful roles the teachers acted served to alleviate the worries about the audience and gave the writers confidence in their compositions.  Reader opinion can be a huge barrier in student writing as well.  Rachel's belief that "other peoples impression" gave worth to her paper showed her dependence on the opinion of the reader, not her own feelings, for Rachel to like her paper.  Additionally, the distinct problem of the students writing what they thought the teacher wanted to read surfaced in Bob's log.  The teacher accidentally changed the purpose of part of his composition, and D'Agostino and Varone recognized that "some students perceived our suggestions as orders (instead of options)."  The authors then reflected on the importance of "preserving their [the students'] individual voices" when assisting student writers with the composition process.  The interaction with the teachers was indeed helped apprehension and uncertainty in some of the writers, but it also created some doubts about their compositions.--Christine Kucia, October 1, 1993

 

MacArthur, C., and B.Stoddard. "A Peer Editor Strategy: Guiding      Learning Disabled Students in Response and Revision."     Research in the Teaching of English v27 n1 (Feb.1993): 76-  100. 

 

     This article summarizes the effects of a study on the writing revising skills of learning disabled students in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades.  The theoretical framework on which this study is based is described in detail, and takes a view of writing as a goal-directed problem solving process, involving recursive movement among planning, production and reviewing processes (77).  The learning approach under study involves integrated strategy instruction, peer response, and word processing.  The method of experimentation is described and the results of the findings show that these three elements are most effective when used together.  From pre-test to post-test, the number of revisions rated as improvements increased by 36%.  Applications of these findings, recommendations for future research, and  limitations of the present study are discussed. 

 

     If one can suffer through the scientific jargon and statistics, the results of this study hold significant implications for future tutoring and teaching of writing to learning disabled students.  It was helpful that, unlike other reports on research that I've read, the limitations and failings of the study done was discussed so that improvements could be made in future studies.  It is also interesting to note how word processing improves the writing and revision skills of LD students-mostly by taking away the physical difficulties posed by handwriting.  Best of all, however, was that I recognized many of the names cited in this report, and was able to understand the theoretical framework on which the research was based.  Laura Manfre, 27 Sept. 1993

 

 

 

Gerrard, Lisa.  "Computers and Composition:  Rethinking Our   Values."  Computers and Composition  10.2 (1992):  23-34.

 

     Gerrard opens her discussion by acknowledging a consistent system of values which computer composition instructors share.  These values, such as collaboration, risk-taking, and technological innovation, are not reflected outside of the classroom.  Conversely, there is a heavy emphasis on competition and ranking in the hierarchy of the English professors' professional lives.  When these two sets of standards collide, both leak into each other, confusing the methods of teaching.

     However, Gerrard focuses heavily on the benefits and strengths of the computer composition professors and their "democratic" and supportive community.  She finds that the members of her field have "embodied some of the most appealing characteristics of the computer industry: optimism, vitality, and inventiveness" (Gerrard,24).  Computer composition instructors are not afraid to experiment and challenge their students in nontraditional, even radical ways.  However, they keep in mind that their priority lies in the students first and the advancement of technology second.  It is through the technology though, that breakthrough methods of instruction have jumped from the theoretical realm, into the realm of the applied.  Students are able to collaborate on papers, communicate through words what may become obscure and biased in face to face encounters, and learn to celebrate their classmates' "differences in ideology, experience, and culture" (Gerrard, 27).

     The downside of Computer Composition lies in the competition between professors within the English departments themselves.  Often times, the strife results from rivalry over status and resources within the department.  There are many theories that have resulted from such an atmosphere that have "motivated more by the pursuit of tenure than the pursuit of knowledge" (Gerrard, 29).  Gerrard cautions against this, as theorizing is a vital part of the computer composition profession.  For it is through new research that this field, which is still at its experimental stage, can generate theories which are applicable to the classroom.  As she points out, "theory grows out of what we do in the classroom and conditions what we bring back to the classroom.  Without practice, it wouldn't exist" (Gerrard, 31).  It is through experimentation, collaboration and cooperation that the field of computer composition can thrive.

     This article, although raising some very interesting points, is almost unprofessional in its presentation.  Gerrard is purely biased towards her profession and portrays it as a perfected polis in which democracy and intellectual growth are the norm.  There is validity to her assertions that the computer can socialize writing and make students more open to not only sharing their own work, but to constructively critiquing the work of their peers.  She sees this as being accomplished through the use of such tools as conferences and e-mail.

     More specific to the issues faced in English 221, this emphasis on reading and collaborating on each other's works could prove to be invaluable.  Although we upgrade our assignments onto the GBB, rarely do we actually read each other's writings.  We have at our fingertips, a means of cooperative learning that few of us are employing.  We need to take advantage of "e-mail and conference networks- that offer new opportunities for group work" (Gerrard, 26).  How can we possibly expect writers to come to us, open themselves up to us by allowing us to aid them in their compositions, when we aren't undergoing the same process.  It is difficult to let others read our works- that is an established truth for everyone.  But perhaps it's time we did that so that we can better understand from where the students who ask our help are coming. Shannon Mussett, 9/27/93

 

Leahy, Richard.  "Of Writing Centers, Centeredness, and   Centrism."  The Writing Center Journal 13, 1 (Fall, 1992) 43-52.

 

     This article is a discussion of the role of a writing center in a college and Leahy's own experiences as director of a writing center.  He begins by the meaning of the term "writing center" (as opposed to "writing lab.").  Focusing particularly on the idea of commmunity as being essential to the concept of a center, he briefly compares his experiences as director of a writing center with about twenty writing assitants to other colleges and institutions with as many as 150, concluding that the sheer magnitude of those groups make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to foster a close sense of community which he feels is vital to the success of a writing center.  He exlains that developing a close community among the writing assistants (including the director!) is vital because it makes them more inclined to reach out to the writers who come to them and welcome them in as well.  Without a strong sense of "purpose," a common bond, such ties are weakened and it becomes much more difficult for the director to keep track of everyone's progress, and much more stressful for the others because they don't have the trust and interdependance they need to work effectively.  This feeling of unity and knowing "who you are" is what Leahy calls "centeredness."  On the other hand, he also see the danger that writing centers may be enveloped by the idea that they are (or should be) "the center of all writing on campus."  He calls this "centrism," the "worlds to conquer" attitude, the danger of feeling responsible for everything and trying to take on too much responsibility. Writing centers simply do not have assistants with backgrounds in all the disciplines in an institution - the majority most likely hail from the english department - so they should not try to dictate to writers in these fields how they should write. 

     Leahy touches on a lot of the subjects we have in class.  He describes the idea of discourse communities, even if he never calls them by that name.  His idea is that the writing center should be its own community which should welcome others but not not interfere overtly with the discources of other communities.  I found it interesting that his idea of creating the community was apparently a single seminar followed by weekly meetings while involved in the work, while we are taking a full semester class.  I doubt I would be very eager to jump right into tutoring with only one seminar under my belt.  I can imagine that the same sense of community is hard - if not impossible - to develop in a situation with large numbers of people and administrators, especially if some are working there as a requirement to become teaching assistants as Leahy said is the case at some colleges.  If there is one advantage to smaller intitutions, it is that they foster closer working relationships - a stronger sense of togetherness. He also mentioned the presence of other writing centers available to students.  ACE would be the only official alternative on our campus, and some writers do go there for writing help.  Like Leahy, I think this is probably a good thing, so the "writing center" doesn't feel it has to be responsible for everyone.  However, it sounded as if his writing center was much more involved in campus politics and having to sell itself to the students than we are here, having the assisatnts actually go into classes "armed with our sales pitch and stacks of brochures."  It seems as if too much competition causes problems as well.

--Stephanie Brown, 11/2/93

 

Elbow, Peter. "Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting out Three Forms of Judgement." College English. 55:2 (1993) 187-206.

    

     Peter reassesses the value of the grading system in his article on the assessment of writing.  He finds fault with ranking, or scoring writing with a single number or letter, because it is inconsistent from evaluator to evaluator, it doesn't give the student any reasoning behind the holistic score, and it undermines the purpose of scoring writing.  Ranking causes students to worry more about the grade than about learning through feedback.  Grades also causes high ranking students to become lax rather than push themselves and low ranking students to become discouraged and ultimately apathetic if they cannot break the pattern of low marks.  He thus reaches the dilemma that grading is unfair and counterproductive, but that institutions and students want to rank and be ranked.  Elbow questions if grading is really the best source of motivation, and cites Evergreen State College as an institute which only gives written evaluations and no number grades. While Elbow doesn't want to totally get rid of the grading system, he proposes less ranking and more evaluation instead. 

     Elbow argues for evalution because it goes beyond ranking to point out the strengths and weaknesses of different aspects of students' writing, which he believes to be much more meaningful and beneficial to the writer. Through evaluation, he find that we have to admit to the subjective aspect of assessment: "that different readers have different priorities, values and standards" (192).  Elbow identifies the problems of evaluation and the benefits of "evaluation-free zones" as well.  Too much evaluation causes students to focus too much on what the teacher wants, preventing them from taking risks, to trust their own ideas.  He promotes evaluation-free zones, such as freewriting, sketching without revising, and reading aloud student writing.  The emphasis of these zones is on " getting rolling, getting fluent, taking risks" (198).  Finally he promotes the idea of "liking" writing.  For one, its a positive reinforcement for a student to have a reader who simultaneously likes and evaluates his writing.  For teachers, liking someone's writing makes it easier to criticize it.

     Elbow provides some innovative, interesting ideas on aspects of assessment, coinciding with Beverly Clark's own suggestions on generating ideas (Clark Chapter 2).  He seems to want to draw our focus away from the nebulous grade and back to the beginning stage through the uninhibited writing which causes the writer to grow and progress.  Writing is thus focused on the process rather than utterly consumed with product.  Grading, although meant to stimulate the writer and give a clear indication of the writers place among his peers, can actually frustrate and hold back writers on both ends of the scale.  The reality is, though, that some sort of quickly recognizable standard must be set in order to determine the level and progress of the writer.  It is a shame that so much appears to ride on a grade, everything from Goucher's own writing proficiency to "eligibility for a scholarship or a job or entrance into professional school" (189).  The question this article raises is over whether there is, in fact, a negotiable solution to the dilemma of grading?  As Elbow notes, the same student could hand in one paper to different teachers and get different grades.  And what type of system does the CIE faculty use to evaluate and determine writing proficiency?  Are students and teachers satisfied with its results?  Stephanie Donlon 10/31/93