Hawisher, Gail E. and Charles Moran. "Electronic Mail and the Writing Instructor." College       English.  55 (October 1993):  627-643.PRIVATE

 

            In this article Hawisher and Moran attempt to remedy  what they perceive as a disturbing lack of analysis in "mainstream journals" of the effects of electronic mail on the writing and teaching processes.  The authors begin by pointing out the necessity of familiarity with e-mail.  An explosion of e-mail use on college campuses and within other institutions around the world forces the conclusion that "we cannot afford to ignore this medium," even though computer technology tends to be a more dominant force in the sciences than in English. The establishment of e-mail as a major form of language exchange also makes it "a proper subject for study in the field of composition theory."

            The article highlights the intriguing differences between e-mail and more traditional forms of writing.  The correspondence aspect of the medium does not follow in the footsteps of paper- mail, for the standard "salutations and closings are almost never seen in the new medium."  The authors go so far as to attempt to define the new "rules" which govern e-mail's approach to concepts such as audience, grammar, and style.  The screen-text, according to the analysis, proves more difficult to read than paper-text and seems to hinder the reader's attempt to grasp the central meaning of a piece.  The relationship to the audience changes dramatically (as is evidenced by the emergence of insulting practices such as "flaming") for the writer tends to have fewer inhibitions when writing e-mail than when composing on paper.  This apparent breakdown in self-censorship stems at least in part from the medium's rapid-response, impermanent nature.  E-mail seems to fall somewhere between written composition and spoken dialogue in the wide range of communications options; although messages are typed, the proliferation of conventions such as "emoticons" convey what would be "intonation and rhythm in a spoken message." 

            This strange blend of speaking and writing seems to contradict the assertions by Barritt and Kroll that the two modes of communication are distinctly separated.  They note that a speaker has a more immediate audience than a writer does, but in the case of e-mail feedback is rapid and often spiced with emoticons and other indications of the reader's reaction to the information (Barritt and Kroll 51).  Barritt and Kroll also assert that in writing the flow of ideas is hindered by the physical act of writing, but e-mail writing tends to be a rapid, uncensored, and unstructured method of communication in which the writer does not lose his or her meaning in the process of worrying over grammar (52).  The act of translating thoughts is more direct than in the traditional mode of writing, because the text is usually not subject to revision or great pondering.

            The effects of e-mail on teaching are exciting, for the article notes that use of this technology will facilitate learning which is "inevitably collaborative" and cross-disciplinary.  Well-defined tasks can be accomplished efficiently through e-mail,  with the input of a variety of students and teachers and rapid interaction between members of project groups.  The use of electronic mail also seems to promote equality within diverse groups, for those students who are uncomfortable with face-to-face discussions or are of lower status tend to voice their opinions more frequently.  E-mail is also invaluable for writers who are brainstorming or revising drafts, because the exchange of ideas over the computer is rapid and convenient.

 Kirkley Greenwell 9/13/94

 

Beason, Larry.  "Feedback and Revision in Writing across the Curriculum Classes."  Research in the Teaching of English.  27.4 (1993) 394-422.

 

     Beason's article attempts to bridge a gap found in the extent of research which investigates the feedback and revision portions of the writing process, by including in his study not only strict composition courses, but writing across the curriculum (WAC) courses.  His hypothesis was that, while composition students and WAC students are one and the same, students don't necessarily use the same writing process for both classes.  Beason felt that it would be beneficial for teachers to better understand the feedback that student writers receive and the revisions that they make.

     In order to accomplish this, he organized a pool of college-level educators who agreed to teach "Writing Enriched Courses" in psychology, business law, journalism, and dental hygiene, in addition to composition.  Based on the students' papers from the classes, a team of student and faculty readers attempted to answer the following questions:

    

          1.  What aims underlie the feedback that students receive on drafts?

          2.  What are the criteria guiding this feedback?

          3.  In revising, do writers address this feedback?

          4.  What criteria are most often reflected in students' revisions?

          5.  At what level of discourse do the revisions operate?

 

     This was accomplished by describing the types of comments made on the working drafts and the types of between-draft revisions, and later analyzing the students' responses to the feedback in their revisions.  The readers used three rubrics for the analysis of the comments, or feedback, from the professors:

          1.  Aim:  attempts to determine the purpose of each comment and can be subdivided into comments  which:

               a.  help student correct a problem

               b.  praise student

               c.  provide "reader response" feedback without judging student

          2.  Criterion Reflected:  identifies the criterion that the comment seemed to reflect the most, of the following:

               Focus, Development/Support, Organization, Mechanics, Expression, Validity, and Other.    

          3.  Revision Outcome:  indicates whether or not the comment is addressed in the final draft. 

 

     The results of the survey can best be described in terms of answers to the original five questions.  In answer to the question "What aims underlie the feedback students receive on drafts?", Advising surfaced as the most prominent category, including about 46% of all the comments.  To answer the question "What criteria guide the feedback?", Development/Support and Expression where the most frequent types of guiding criteria, while Mechanics surprisingly rated least frequent.  The next question,"Do writers address this feedback?", was simply determined by categorizing comments based on whether or not it was the basis for revision.  Overall, the students were responsive to the feedback, and revised as a result of 89.3% of the comments.  The majority of the unaddressed comments were restricted to a few individual students rather than the result of an overall trend.  Further analysis of the students' revisions and the criteria which are most reflected  revealed that students were most guided by Expression and Development/Support criteria, in accordance with the feedback which was also most guided by those criteria.  In answer to the final question, "At what level of discourse do the revisions operate?", Beason discovered that writers divided their time fairly equally between revisions that did not change meaning (mechanics, etc.) and those that did (focus,development).  Global meaning revising, in which the entire paper was revised, was relatively scarce.

     While the study offers a wider profile of writing activities in which students engage than most studies, it does not "account for human motivations underlying the emerging patterns and frequencies"(416) and does not establish whether or nor it is the WAC context that inspires the process.  However, it does open our eyes to a broader perspective of the writing process, and shows us how much research is yet undeveloped in the area of curriculum-wide writing processes.   (Liz Alex 94)

 

King, Mary.  "What Can Students Say about Poems?  Reader Response in a Conference Setting."  Dynamics of the Writing Conference.  Ed. Thomas Flynn and Mary King.  Urlana,  Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993.  69-79.

 

I found this chapter of particular interest because I am currently taking a poetry class and my poetry analysis skills need some brushing up.  The article actually touched on a problem that I have throughout my writing and not just when I am responding to a poem.  All too often I find myself writing what I believe the teacher wants to hear instead of using my own skills to analyze a work and draw conclusions based on my own knowledge and experience.  King points out that in many instances students lack the skills to break down a poem because teachers fail to teach them these skills.  Instead, they attempt to teach by example, giving their own analysis of the poem.  I am reminded of the "Teach a man to fish..." proverb.  As a tutor, it will be important to remember to teach the skills of analysis and synthesis instead of simply handing them my own analysis.  This article also reminded me of the importance of my voice in my writing. 

Shannon Coombs

 

Dale, Helen.  "Collaborative Writing Interactions in One Ninth-Grade Classroom."         Journal of Educational Research July/August 1994: 334-44.

 

            During the field work which led up to this article, Helen Dale observed and recorded the interactions of three coauthoring triads.  Citing a dearth in relevant research, her main intent was to determine the factors which lead to successful collaborative writing.  Her rationale for those choosing to coauthor is grounded in a social view of writing.  Drawing upon Vygotsky's assertion that "speaking and writing are fundamentally social acts" (qtd in Dale 335), Dale explains that coauthoring encourages students to value "multiple voices" (334) and to question one's own ideas (335).  Among other things, participants in coauthoring can permit students to learn more than they could have learned by writing alone, and past studies have found that students write better after a collaborative experience (ibid.).

            Of particular relevancy was Dale's description of how she formed the coauthoring groups for her study.  She stresses the importance of "establishing heterogeneous groups" (336) before students form "strong notions of who [is] smart" (ibid.).  In addition to this, she points out that people in such a group will have different strengths into which they may tap.  I think this is a suggestion to keep in mind as our class begins coauthoring projects, as people may likely to choose their friends as partners.

            Dale's findings can also serve to indicate what to expect while coauthoring.  Foremost, she mentions that the most successful groups were the ones which had a high percentage of "cognitive conflict" (336).  This type of conflict consists mainly of challenges regarding content and concept, forcing one to "legitimize [one's] arguments" (ibid.).  She stressed the difference between this type of conflict and personal conflict, as well as conflict over the mechanics of writing.  In addition to cognitive conflict, Dale underscores the importance of approaching coauthoring as a dialogic process; the most successful group had a high level of conversational turns.  Her groups coauthored by composing while all members were present.  This is significantly different from either writing separately and forming a synthesis or dividing the authoring process into writing and editorial tasks.

Dale also found that the most successful groups did not always have equal contributions from all group members.  However, they did not assume permanent roles of leader, editor and so on, but moved from one to another, and without defining these roles.  Dale found that one particularly unsuccessful role is that of "Teacher," because students did not understand it well enough, and because it destroyed the peer relationship which facilitated a productive exchange of ideas.

            Although Dale's study does not broach the topic of  academic ethics, it should provide detractors of coauthoring with a better understanding of its basis in past theory and research, as well as its potential benefits.  I think that if collaboration is used in preapproved situations and is acknowledged on the coauthored work, then most ethical questions can be answered with forthrightness.    Mika Sam    9/13/94

 

Michael Pemberton, "Writing Center Ethics:The ethics of intervention; Part 2." The Writing Lab Newsletter, Jan.1994.

 

                        This article was a continuance of a previous article that Michael Pemberton wrote.  The question he addresses is  how much should we intervene in a students' writing when we disagree with their paper's ethics.  The arguments are: do tutors have the right to tell a child that the opinion that they have taken in their paper is wrong, or should tutors accept the fact that it is a students freedom of speech and not intervene at all?  His conclusion is that there "are no right or wrong answers."

                        Pemberton gives four scenarios. He asks the reader to read them and respond on how they would go about helping this student with his/her paper.  In each scenario students are asked to "write a paper about a controversial topic of interest to them."  Each of the four students take different sides of the affirmative action debate. 

                        The students are of different races and have some strong views about affirmative action.  All except one has been influenced by the opinion of the teacher.  Three of the students struggle with arguing the view point of their instructor. The fourth student doesn't care how the teacher reacts and if the teacher counts off on his paper because of his view point he will take further action.

                        Pemberton has brought up a very important issue.  How do you advise a student who argues against your own beliefs, or the beliefs of the teacher?  Should you as the tutor try and transform the students opinions?  Or could we just explain that anybody who takes a side of a debate needs to have strong points that they can back up.  The tutors should know that a student can not write a successful paper on something with which the student disagrees.  We should encourage student to write about what they believe in, and to back it up with legitimate reasons.  This might force the students to think about their own opinions, and beliefs.

                        In my personal writing background,  I can't remember a time when I was encouraged to take one specific side to an argument.  I can , however, remember times when I have felt like my papers  have been graded and counted off because my opinion was different from the instructor.  I think that the decision of intervention is a hard one to make.  How far shall we step into a students' work. I think that if the tutors make the student show their specific points and their proof to their  argument then we should leave it alone.  We can express the fact that we do not feel that their opinion is correct, and maybe even have your own little debate.  That might prove to the especially ignorant student that they may have to rethink their argument.  Besides from those suggestions I think that the tutor should not intervene.  Elizabeth Turner, 9/12/94

 

Fine, Ellen S.  "The Absent Memory: The Act of Writing in Post-Holocaust French Literature."  Writing and the Holocaust.  Berel Lang, ed.  Holmes and Meier:  New York, 1988.

 

            Fine discusses how second generation Jews, children of survivors of the Holocaust, face the "Shoah" (catastrophe) in their writing. Examining the works of Claude Lanzmann and Henry Raczymow, Fine uses the metaphor of the blank page.  Just as a writer may be intimidated by the empty whiteness in front of her, so is the Jewish writer who must create something from nothing, who must reinvent memory.  "The task of organizing this nothingness into images gave him [Lanzmann] the same kind of vertigo that the writer experiences in front of the blank page" (Lang 45).  Distance and absence become the themes and metaphors second generation writers and survivor-writers use to illustrate the tension and guilt they experience when writing about the Holocaust.  "Survivors of the Holocaust are torn between the mission to bear witness and an equally compelling fear of betraying the sanctity of the subject" (Lang 42).  Writing the memory as fiction, for writers such as Elie Wiesel and Anna Langfus, has given authors the distance they need to uncover their memories. 

            Second generation writers of Holocaust memory feel a similar tension, but it is intensified by their "absence" of memory.  They were not there, and this is further compounded by the silence that hid the memory for so long after the war.  "For those born in the shadow of genocide, apprehensions about the right to speak are often linked to the guilt of nonparticipation ... They are haunted by the world that has vanished; a large gap exists in their history, and they desire to bridge the gap, to be informed about what occurred, to know something about members of their family who perished" (Lang 43) This is an extreme version of Reither's argument that writer's cannot write out of nothingness, out of ignorance; a knowledgeable discourse, even if it is one's personal history, is critical to the writing process.  The idea of an unfillable void persists in Holocaust literature, coupled with an unhinging desire to know, to understand, what is incomprehensible. Fine traces Raczymow's path of writing about nothingness in La Saisie, in which the reader is exposed to the narrator's "endless groping for nouns, verbs and images as the writing process reveals itself" (Lang 47).  Later, "[Raczymow] changed his focus from the void he suffered as a writer to a more personal sense of void--the immense gap in his own memory.  He suddenly realized that the emptiness he felt within came from a lack of knowledge due to the nontransmission of collective and family memory" (Lang 47). How do writer's recall their memory, how do they write a history they did not experience, or rather, a history they experienced as a void, a lack?  This is the question Fine explores as she writes on her blank page.  (-Debbie Swartz 9/18/94)

 

Friend, Christy.  "Ethics in the Writing Classroom:  A Nondistributive Approach.:  College         English.  56:5 (September 1994): 548-567.

 

            Friend argues that it is nessesary to use a nondistributive approach in the classroom to successfully and ethically teach students how to write in the academic community.  A nondistributive approach is to affirm diversity in the classroom and in the world around us, see people as "doers," and understand that conflict and disagreement can be beneficial.  Friend sees teachers of writing as "agents of social change" whose classrooms are largely affected by the opinions of the teacher and the assignments that are given out.  Teachers have different views about whether it is better to assign multicultural readings so the students develop an appreciation for it, or to reward accurate citing and representation of others' viewpoints, or to commend those students who can persuasively argue their personal opinions in their academic writing.  Friend claims that both consensus and conflict are healthy and beneficial in the classroom; students must learn to present their own points, even in the face of opposition.  Friend believes that this diversity in the classroom will help bring a better understanding of the variety of people to her students.

            Friend has taken the writing process farther than Flower and Hayes in their article.  From a writing teacher's viewpoint, it is important and ethical to carefully choose the types of assignments that are given to the students so that they may be challenged and become better prepared to enter the academic writing community.  In the article by Flower and Hayes, they are more concerned with the negative effects of teaching the writing method in stages than with the assignment.  Reither and Friend are on the same basic track, as Reither dispells the writing process and sees content as the learning experience.  Friend's arguments have helped me realize that the product, and the knowledge gained while producing it, are more important than the particular method used to achieve the end result.  Stacey Brukiewa 9/16/94

 

Peterson, Linda H.  "Gender and the Autobiographical Essay:    Research Perspectives, Pedagogical Practices."  College             Composition and Communication, Vol. 42, No. 2, May 1991.

 

            Peterson explains how gender affects the content of an autobiographical essay.  She compares the essays of men and women at Yale University and at Utah State who were asked to write an autobiographical essay.  Two readers, one male and one female, evaluated the essays.  The essays were first comprehensively assigned ratings on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high).  Next they were evaluated on the basis of significance, clarity, and richness of detail.

            In this test group, the female students scored on average .5 points higher than male students.  When studied more closely, Peterson determined that the female students excelled in generalization, abstraction, and analysis.  The female students tended to chose "relational topics," focusing on the relationship between the writer and another person or group.  In contrast, the male students tended to focus upon the self alone.

            The implications of this study guide both the teacher creating assignments and the student choosing a topic for an autobiographical essay.  Peterson explains the considerations both the teacher and student should evaluate. 

            The teacher must be sure not to assign a paper which would favor either the male or female perspective.  Autobiographical essay topics should be rather open ended.  When providing model autobiographical essays for the students to read, the teacher should include essays by both male and female authors.  If the teacher is aware of the common differences between male and female responses, he or she will be better able to objectively evaluate the essays.  The teacher should pay special attention to the difference in personal significance of certain events in the life of men and women. 

            Peterson's paper also provides advice for students composing an autobiographical essay.  She suggests that students "explore- perhaps even challenge- the assumptions about men's and women's experience that underlie [a gender- specific topic]" (177).  Additionally, Peterson advocates searching for the universal qualities of an experience or "cross-dressing," trying to view the situation from a different person's perspective.  Peterson cites several examples of strong autobiographical essays which utilize these techniques. 

            When developing an autobiographical essay, Peterson's article could serve as a convenient tool.  She illustrates the obvious responses to a prompt by a person of a certain gender, and challenges the writer to explore his or her ideas at another level or with a different perspective.  Her work also aids the instructor in evaluating personal essays objectively. 

                                                                                                     Sara Benjamin  September 12, 1994

Ha Lam

9/11/94

Eng 221: Sanders

Week 3: ann. bib.#1

 

Campbell, JoAnn.  "Writing to Heal: Using Meditiation in the Writing Process."  College Composition and Communication.  May 1994: 246-50

 

            This article is one of four interchanges between Beth Daniell, JoAnn Campbell, C. Jan Swearingen, and James Moffett  titled "Spiritual Sites of Composing".  Campbell chooses to "review  the scholarship on the connections between meditation and writing" (246).  She states that she will "analyze objections to the use of meditation in a writing classroom" and supports the use of meditation with appprehensive or blocked writers (Campbell 246).  She defines healing as "being from the holy, the spiritual, an interplay of forces with which I am a participant rather than creator" (Campbell 247).  Campbell cites different books which support the physical and psychological benefits of writing:

1) Courage to Heal which suggests people who have been sexually abused to narrate their experiences,

2) Life's Companion: Journal Writing as a Spiritual Quest which uses  meditation to expand the reader's awareness of issues explored through journaling,

3) Writing from the Inner Self which contains a collection of guided visualization exercises designed to help writers tap into deeper topics,

4) Pain and Possibility which contains participants testifying to the power of meditation and writing combined.

Campbell also cites a psychological study which reported that 'those subjects who had written about their thoughts and feelings about traumatic experiences evidenced significant improvement in immune functin compared with controls' (247).

            Though Campbell cites several books which support meditation in writing, she fails to adequately show how meditation affects one's writing.  She quotes D. Gordon Rohman who "maintained that once students had experieneced their subject 'the urge to get it down usually increases to the point that the will directs the actual writing of words to begin'" (Campbell 248).  Campbell also quotes James Moffett who "proposes inner speech as the 'bridge' between meditation and writing" where meditation allows a writer to perceive the "deeper self that abides at least somewhat independently of the outside" (Campbell 248).

 

Hernández, José Salvador.  "Bilingual Metacognitive Development."  The Educational    Forum Summer 1993.

            One of Hernández's first observations is that ESL students often only receive "mechanical. . .low-level remedial instruction" (350-51) of which the main goal is to help them reach a higher degree of fluency or proficiency in English.  However, he states that ESL students have a "need for richer language experiences that foster more advanced cognitive processes" (350).  He notes that even though an ESL student may have problems speaking English, it does not mean that that student has no ability to think.  He states, "This simplistic notion ignores the fact that these students are already proficient in a language they understand and use, have some experiences with literacy and mathematics, identify with previous school experiences, and have a sociocultural knowledge just as valid as school-based knowledge" (351).  This suggests that while language in general may serve as a tool for thought (Vygotsky quoted in Hernández 353), there is not only one language which can do this, or which can do this best.

            With these arguments in mind, Hernández proposes changes to the current teaching methodology for ESL students.  First, one must show the ESL student how to take charge of his own learning and thought processes.  To do this, the student must think about thinking, or in the author's words, operate on a "metacognitive" (352) level.  Therefore, the student must also complete activities in which she or he must be a decision-maker.  Such activities include planning science experiments and editing and redrafting their own writing (352).  As with Wendy Bishop's article about writing apprehension, the emphasis is upon process rather than product, though here it is also a case of process before product.  Teaching metacognition is especially beneficial in a class with both ESL students and native speakers, for this is a skill which will help both groups in their future studies.

            The obvious problem with teaching metacognition before honing language skills is the already-present problem with English proficiency.  Hernández proposes several solutions to alleviate and work around this problem.  The first is to teach in the child's primary language, rather than in English.  When this is not possible, due to lack of multi-lingual faculty (or, I imagine, political unfeasibility), he suggests that ESL students who are more proficient at English act as translators or aides.  Hernández justifies this by citing Vygotsky's findings that children need social interaction and language to develop higher levels of cognition (353).  Thus, students who could not interact with others by speaking English need to do so by speaking their native tongue.  However, I think that he too easily assigns the role of translator to children.  This is placing a great deal of educational responsibility upon children who have not taken any courses in education.  And  while cooperative learning seems to be beneficial in most instances, teachers must make sure that these "translators" are getting ample time to further their own cognitive development.

            Hernández also suggests working around differences in language abilities by using non-verbal teaching aids, such as "visuals and manipulatives" (354).  This practice could also be beneficial in a heterogeneous classroom, for (I remember reading about this in the newspaper once) there is a relatively new theory out that there are nine types of learners, who learn best through the use of different senses and sensibilities, such as kinesthesia, vision, music, and touch.  Thus learners who are not aural learners will benefit from such teaching aids.

            Using nonverbal teaching aids may also prove helpful in a tutoring session (with an ESL or non-ESL tutee) in which explanation in language just is not working.  As we discussed in class, cognitive maps are just one way of doing this.  They and other non-verbal methods may help show the tutee what he or she knows in a way that provides different mental connections, and hopefully, epiphany.

            Hernández's suggestions toward fostering metacognition can also be helpful to the writing tutor.  A tutor who helps the tutee direct his or her own thoughts will have not only helped the tutee at that moment, but also given him or her a reservoir from which to draw in future writing tasks.  Again, as Hernández says, to encourage metacognition, one can stress problem solving skills (355), especially by encouraging the tutee to look for problems in his or her own writing, and then to decide how to fix them.

            However, with tutees who have extreme or moderate problems with English proficiency, the tutor is confronted with a decision.  What is the job of the tutor in this case?  Does one try to remedy "low-level" mechanics or does one, as per Hernández, try to teach metacognition?  Though Hernández proposes reforms to teach metacognition first, this could prove extremely frustrating and time-consuming when there is truly some sort of "language barrier."  Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between: teach mechanical skills by and while explaining the underlying reasons for them and definitely by encouraging the tutee to take charge of his learning.  Obviously, one cannot make someone take charge of their learning, but it is worthwhile to try to make someone interested in learning.  This is also in line with the ethical duty of the tutor to enable learning for the tutee, rather than to do the work for the tutee.

            But how does one teach mechanical skills in a metacognitive way?  Perhaps the tutor should give examples of the skill to be taught and ask the tutee to observe patterns or a rule which seems to apply.  Then the tutor should ask the tutee to apply this pattern to their own writing, or to find the trouble spots in their own writing where they might now apply this new pattern. 

            While teaching skills in this way, the tutor should  probably also encourage metacognition when dealing with content.  After listening to an English 103 professor conference with some students, I was struck by how many times she asked her students, "But what do you really think about this?"  Proceeding metacognitively, the tutor should encourage the tutee to make a habit of asking themselves that question.  If the tutee cannot answer that question, perhaps they should get into the habit of asking themselves why they cannot, and thus try to pin down their problems by themselves.  This, of course, does not mean that the tutee should be made to operate in a vacuum, for the tutor can offer reflections on the tutee's self-answered questions.  However, this method of self-questioning is potentially useful outside of the tutoring session, when there is no tutor present to ask the tutee, "What don't you understand?  Why?"  Self-questioning outside of a tutoring environment can also be helpful in that when a student realize he or she still has confusions, then maybe they need to have a tutoring session to help clarify their thought.

            Ultimately, perhaps this is the aim of tutoring, to help guide the student (ESL or not) in learning to think for him or herself, and to help the student in the clarification of his or her own thoughts.--Mika Sam, 10/10/94

 

Rich, Adrienne.  On Lies, Secrets, and Silence.  "When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision (1971)."   W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 1979.  pp. 33-49.

            What does it mean to be a woman who writes?   For Rich the answer lies in using writing as a tool of "re-vision."  Women can re-write language, redefine the "canon" and reinvent our selves through writing.  The women's movement has forced open the locked and heavy doors of academia and scholarship to change, for the better, "the availability of knowledge, of vital texts, the visible effects on women's lives of seeing, hearing our wordless or negated experience affirmed and pursued further in language" (Rich 34).  A woman now has a greater opportunity to earn "a room of her own" in which to carry out the act of re-vision.  More specifically, re-vision is: "the act of looking back, of seeing with fresh eyes, of entering an old text from a new critical direction...[re-vision] is for women more than a chapter in cultural history; it is an act of survival.  Until we can understand the assumptions in which we are drenched we cannot know ourselves" (Rich 35). 

            It is useful to consider Peter Elbow's essay "Closing My Eyes as I Speak" (Graves 247) to illuminate one of Rich's finer points and to connect it to the writing process for students at Goucher.  Implicit in Rich's discussion is the question of the role of audience for women writers.   Can women, according to Rich's view, write in Elbow's "desert island," without considering the gendered social expectations of a male dominated "audience?"  (Assuming the audience is society and culture, which is patriarchal).  Furthermore, what are the implications for women of the role of audience if Elbow encourages writers to revise with the audience in mind, after a period of "invisible" writing, or free-writing.  Elbow's concept of revision and the aim of free or invisible writing beforehand (on the desert island) is in direct contradiction with Rich's perspective of "re-vision" discussed above.  In fact, Rich would reject Elbow's "desert island" proposition, based on her comment that writing well does not necessitate making one's self unavailable to others, or disconnecting one's self from external distractions.  That, furthermore, "this has been the myth of the masculine artist and thinker; and I do not accept it" (Rich 43). 

            Rich discusses Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, relating her surprise at "the sense of effort, of pains taken, of dogged tentativeness, in the tone of that essay" (Rich 37). Rich recognizes this ambiguous tone in her writing and in the writing of other women.  "It is the tone of a woman almost in touch with her anger, who is determined not to appear angry, who is willing herself to be calm, detached, and even charming in a roomful of men where things have been said which are attacks on her very integrity" (Rich 37).  How can a tutor empower a female student who is inhibited by an intimidating male professor?  What kind of intervention is ethically possible in such a situation?  (Are there male professors at Goucher who are particularly intimidating?  Is this something that happens very specifically, or is gender discrimination by male professors due to the "invisible hand" of gender politics?) 

            What is the value, to a woman, of the "audience of self," if that self is co-opted by a male dominated culture?  How can women write freely if it is always in the context of patriarchy?  Rich resolves this by asserting that the "creative energy of patriarchy is fast running out; what remains is its self-generating energy for destruction.  As women, we have our work cut out for us" (Rich 49). I enjoy Rich's feminist critique, but that is quite a burden for women writers to take on. Debbie Swartz 10/07/94

 

Flower, Linda.  "Writer-Based Prose:  A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing."  College       English.  41 (September 1979):  19-37.

            Linda Flower addresses the problem of "undertransformed" expression found in the final drafts of people who use mainly Writer-Based prose--a form of writing which she calls "the source of some of the most common and pervasive problems in academic and professional writing" (19).  Because the problems caused by a lack of or faulty translation of Writer-Based prose are so prevalent and often frustrating for teachers and writing tutors, I think that it is important to understand the nature of this private form of expression so that we might be better prepared to aid in transforming it into more public communication. 

            Flower defines Writer-Based prose as "a verbal expression written by a writer to himself and for himself" (19).  She continues by saying that it is often narrative or list-like in structure and reflects the mental processes of the writer without being edited for the comprehension of the reader (20).  Reader-Based prose, on the other hand, is "issue-centered rhetorical structure" designed with the audience in mind, and is the final goal of any composition project (20).  Many experienced and successful writers, especially those who are multi-drafters, tend to begin their composition process by writing in Writer-Based prose and transforming the initial draft into a more readable form with extensive revision.  The problem appears when not-so-successful writers use Writer-Based text for their final drafts and are criticized for a "missing referent," "an underdeveloped idea," or "unfocused and apparently pointless discussion" within the paper (19).  Flower also relates her concepts to the work of Vygotsky and Piaget on inner and egocentric speech.  Relying on this cognitive basis she expresses what is most important in this article:  that Writer-Based prose is a natural and often functional stage of the writing process, and teachers and tutors who recognize that a student's writing problems stem from "undertransformed" prose can be more effective aids in producing a polished piece of communication.

            A very common problem which Flower addresses hampers writers whose "organizing principle is dictated by their information, not by their intention" (26).  The author describes writers who are "lured by the fascination of facts" and by listing or organizing these facts into a paper they deceive themselves into thinking that they are creating a rhetorical structure (26).  I have encountered this problem in many English classes where teachers have referred to it as "retelling the story."  Many students (and I have to check myself for this, too) think that they are creating a thesis or making an original observation about a literary work but, in reality, are summarizing the plot of a story in a new organization with little if any original thoughts.  I had an English teacher in high school who would call these "so what?" papers.  The value of Flower's article lies in her recognition of this problem as a failure to transform these facts into connected concepts, and she presents such restating of the facts as a useful tool in the planning or rough draft stage.  The task of teachers and writing tutors is also to recognize a paper in which the writer has merely regurgitated facts in the hopes of slipping by unnoticed.  Flower offers a helpful technique for tutoring these students who are often mired in vague words and purposeless writing:  she suggests that we ask students to analyze the personal meaning behind "loaded" conventional words and phrases to prompt students to expand on their own thoughts (32).  As an example, Flower shows how writers alter such meaningless phrases as "different perspective" and "relevant and diverse areas" to truly explain the "difference" or the "relevance" and "diversity" (32).  Such use of introspection can transform an ambiguous piece of writing into a composition with something to say.--Kirkely Greenwell, 10/7/94

 

Klonoski, Edward.  "Using the Eyes of the PC to Teach Revision."  Computers and Composition 11 (1994):  71-78.

 

            Klonoski suggests methods in which the use of a word processing program can aid beginning writers in revising for fluency.  First, Klonoski defines revision for fluency as a level of modification beyond simple changes in punctuation or exchanges of synonyms.  According to Klonoski, students must learn to "approach revision as ...continued thinking about the ideas, order, and voice of their work" (73).

            Klonoski explains that traditional grammar check programs just present surface mistakes, the kind of errors students feel comfortable fixing.  An alternate method of using the word processing program to teach revision skills involves the use of the "Search" function.  In Klonoski's classes, Klonoski will first discuss a weak construction upon which beginning writers frequently rely.  For example, he notes the use of the modifier "very" on a weak adjective.  Klonoski will instruct the class to use the "Search" command to find all instances of the word "very" in their paper.  The students will grapple with possible alterations to their papers which would strengthen the adjectives or introduce a metaphor in order to reduce reliance on the modifier "very."  By making the modification process part of the class period, students assist each other in revising their work, and the professor may also offer aid. The students learn to use the computer as a tool, "always emphasizing that the computer suggests, but the writer decides" (77).

            Klonoski also emphasizes the importance of composition teachers playing an active role in the development of computer tools for composition.  Technological process reaches all disciplines, so responsibility for its direction must be shared by composition teachers and computer scientists alike.  By stressing the role of computers directly in the classroom, Klonoski provides a unique framework from which contemporary, innovative classrooms should function.  Klonoski moves the revision process from an uncertain, independent venture into a supportive, collaborative environment, taking advantage of the computer as a composition tool.

            The same techniques Klonoski uses in his classroom could be taught in the writing center, if the students bring their papers saved on compatible disks.  Writing tutors could teach students to critically edit their own work by understanding and searching weak constructions. 

Sara Benjamin October 4, 1994

 

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

               51.8  (1989)  855-867.

     In "Writing as Collaboration", Reither and Vipond attempt to broaden the accepted view of writing as a process by including more long-range activities including "knowledge-making", a process not generally a part of traditional collaboration techniques.  To demonstrate long-range collaboration techniques, they use a case study written by Vipond and Russel Hunt, following its development from its original draft through several "trusted assessors", to its final version.,  In discussing the study, Reither and Vipond break the collaboration into three basic forms, or realms:  coauthoring, workshopping, and knowledge making. 

     In choosing to be coauthors, the two  authors enjoyed the advantage of "synergy":  "Vipond, with a background in cognitive psychology, and Hunt with a background in literary studies, were able to accomplish things together that neither could have accomplished alone" (Reither and Vipond 858).  Reither and Vipond then go on to give specific examples of their coauthorship, such as :"  "the two met in final editing sessions in which they huddled over the same keyboard, reading (often aloud), discussing options, taking turns adding and deleting, each occasionally even grabbing the keyboard out of the other's hands" (858). 

     Besides working with each other, Hunt and Vipond entered into collaborative relationships with colleagues within their own institution in the process of worksh\opping.  "The asked trusted colleagues to comment on drafts of the article, and used this feedback to guide revisions of  the piece" (858), the most drastic of which was a change in the field of knowledge in which the article fit.  In reference to both coauthoring and workshopping, Reither and Vipond relate the primary benefit of the collaborative process to be the establishment and maintenance of "communities which function within the larger, 'disciplinary' communities, where their knowledge claims might find a fit.  Developing claims cooperatively, collectively, collaboratively, the members of such a community-within-a -community learn from one another; they support and sustain one another"  (859).

      Next Reither and Vipond, having proclaimed the glories of collaboration, proceed to claim that while " as valuable as they clearly are, neither literal coauthorship nor workshopping is necessary to writing" (860), and that the essential, more abstract realm of collaboration is knowledge making.  This process consists of a collaboration with past and present writers in the specific field, through research; collectively their statements make up the pool of knowledge that is the file in which the authors hope to fit their work.  In the case of Hunt and Vipond, their anti le was first directed toward one field, but after being workshoped, was discovered to be more appropriate for another field.

     After having described these three realms of collaboration, Reither and Vipond suggest methods of teaching collaborative writing, with the ultimate goal of  "establishing -through authoring, coauthoring, and workshopping-immediate, local communities of writer-knowers" (862).

     While Reither and Vipond have a valid argument in their claim that "All of us who make meaning through writing and reading .... do so in community with others who share our nterests in the knowing and the knowledge making processes that constitute our fields of inquiry" (866), a more theoretical approach, including a definition of the "community" within which and for which the collaboration process exists and its role in the writing process would add a further dimension to the article.  (Liz Alex '94)

 

Shannon Coombs

Cosgrove, Ccrnelius.  "Conferencing for the 'Learning-Disabled': How We Might Really Help."  Dynamics of the Writing Conference.  Ed. Thomas Flynn and Mary King.  Urlana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. 95-101.

            This article was short, but I chose it because of our recent readings on tutoring students with dyslexia and because of my personal interest in learning disabilities since I am studying to be a special education teacher.  Cosgrove focuses on a problem that has both special education and regular education teachers at a loss.  Learning disabilities have become so encompassing and the identification of students with learning disabilities has become so vague and uncertain it is difficult to know how to teach students differently, or if to teach them differently at all.  There are so many subcategories and fuzzy categories under the term "learning disabilities" and school system constantly try to shove students into these categories to increase funding to their system.  (In many systems, the bigger the special education program the better the overall funding.)  This high rate of misidentification places uncertainties in the minds of regular education writing teachers such as Cosgrove.  How should he deal with these learning disabled students, who may not have learning disabilities at all?

            I think Cosgrove's approach to this frustrating dilemma is a practical one.  Though a little research, Cosgrove discovered that many of the methods used by special education teachers with learning disabled students are methods that can be just as effective when working with a struggling student who doesn't have a learning disability (ie. group learning, role play, peer tutoring).  By applying these techniques to help improve the writing of all students, we are still supplying students with disabilities with the extra push that they need.  In a classroom setting, this type of set-up is ideal because neither the child with the learning disability nor the other children feel left out or different.  Some of Cosgrove's important statements to me as a future special education teacher are made at the end of the article when he states that "...conferencing and process-oriented writing instruction offer what writers need, regardless of evaluative distinctions" (101).   He also encourages writing centers to consider students with learning disabilities as writing tutors, in order to increase their own writing skills.  I am highly in favor of Cosgrove's opinion that writers with learning disabilities should be regarded with the same impartiality as writers without learning disabilities.  Both need many of the same kinds of reinforcement and instructions, instead of differentiated drills and categories.

 

Ha Lam

10/5/94

Eng 221: Sanders

week 6: ann. bib. #2

Peyton, Joy; Staton, Jana; Richardson, Gina andWolfram, Walt.  "The Influence of Writing Task on ESL Students' Written Production."  Research in the Teaching of English.  Vol.24, No. 2, May 1990.

            This article reveals an in-depth study of 12 sixth grade ESL students' writing.  The study compared the students' dialogue journal writing with a selection of three teacher-assigned tasks produced during the same time period by the same student writers.

For the journal writing, the only stipulation was that the students write in their journals a minimum of three sentences each day during the school year.  They decided what to write, when to write, and how much to write.  For the three teacher-assigned tasks, the students had to write: 1) a letter to a teacher thanking him for donating a set of Wildlife Encyclopedias to the class, 2) an essay comparing and contrasting the grasslands and desert using information from the unit the students had been studying, and 3) a letter to a friend suggesting that they watch a particular television show.  All these writing samples were true classroom assignments; none was assigned specifically for the research.

            In the journals, the students covered a whole range of topics: questions about school procedures, course material, and U.S. culture, wrote about experiences at home and school, and even wrote poems.  The teacher was a familiar audience and responded to each entry, writing the same length as the students' entries.  The journals were not graded or corrected in any way.

            The purpose of the letter to a teacher involved functional communication with a genuine audience about a topic the students knew something about.  The teacher assigned the topic and outlined some of the points to be covered and some possible wording.  These letters were written to be evaluated; they were graded and corrected with no other feedback. 

            In the essay, the purpose was for a grade with no specific audience apart form the teacher as evaluator.  The teacher assigned the topic which required knowledge beyond the students' personal experience.  The class had been studying this unit and the teacher discussed some ways to write the essay.

            In the letter to a friend, the purpose was entirely for evaluation and was a part of a test that all sixth grade students had to take at the end of the year.  The topic and genre were assigned, but the students chose who they wanted to write to and what program they would recommend.

            This study focused specifically on the following factors of the writing task: the purpose for the writing, topic choice, student knowledge, the audience, and the type of response received.  Research found that "the quantity and maturity of the students' dialogue journal writing was at least equivalent to the assigned writing on all measures, and in some cases showed more complex linguistic expression" (Peyton et al. 142).  Results suggest that "unassigned writing" helps ESL students to explore and demonstrate a more complete range of their writing abilities in contrast to the commonly held view that structured, formal writing "is syntactically more complex, with a greater number of clause embeddings and a greater variety of clause connectors" (Peyton et al. 152).

            This study also supports that "when give the opportunity to write for authentic purposes, for a familiar or known audience who responds with interest and involvement, ESL students tend to express themselves in more creative and sophisticated ways than they do in more restrictive environments" (Peyton et al. 143).

            I found this article to raise some very interesting points regarding how to best help ESL students (and all writers in general) learn how to write better.  Harris, in "The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing," argues that good writers write in their private journals which helps to improve their writing.  The results of this study support Harris and suggests that journal writing is important to the development of ESL students.  This "unassigned writing" allow students to practice writing while exploring subjects which interest them; it allows for higher thinking and "contains features that are valued in more formal writing" (Peyton et al. 167).  Journal writing, one form of "unassigned writing," gives students an opportunity to reflect on what they are learning and gives time to explore how school learning affects their lives directly while helping them to develop their writing.  I know for me that this is true; journal writing helps me to see things in a different light and helps me to relate what I learn in class to the "real world". 

 

Bishop, Wendy.  "Writing from the Tips of our Tongues:  Writers, Tutors, and Talk."  The          Writing Center Journal.  12:  (Fall 1993):  30-43.

            In this essay, Bishop focuses on the importance of talking and conversing about writing with others, specifically, the tutors in the writing center.   Bishop states that writing is a collaborative process, not an act of "solitary genesis," to use Valerie Miner's term.   Bishop points out that there are very few books that are created from a single person's composition.  To prove this point, she recommends looking at the list of references and acknowledgements at the end of nearly every book.  All writers have the ". . . need to explore, examine, and articulate ideas" which can be acheived through ". . . collaborative conversations which enrich our writing and our teaching lives" (37, 38).  Every writer needs this conversation to create a text of quality, including students and also those who write for a living.  Vygotsky would agree on the importance of speech for composing, although he focused only on inner speech while Bishop highlights the importance of the verbalization of ideas.

            Writing can be an activity that creates apprehension in the writer, as Bishop points out in another article, but here she claims that conversations can actually be a source of "encouragement" and "a reason for many of our writers to continue in an otherwise discouraging climate" (33).  Verbalizing ideas about a paper can also help the writer sort out and clarify for an audience his or her own thoughts and ideas.  Through informal talking, writers can develop a deeper and broader sense of the community for which they are writing and make better literary connections within the community.  Informal talking may also give the writer a better understanding of the audience for whom he or she is writing.  These revelations about organization of ideas, community, and audience can help the writer create an excellent, well-balanced writer- and reader-based piece of writing.  Stacey Brukiewa  10/5/94

 

Michael A. Pemberton. "Writing Center Ethics."  The Writing Lab Newslatter. vol 18. Feb. 1994:  10.

                        Michael Pemberton has written yet another article which questions the intervention of tutors and teachers in a students writing. This time he picks four fictitious students which have written letters to different influential people in their life, such as their congressman, English instructor, roommate, and parents. All four of the students attack the reader using bad language, name calling etc. The student asks the teacher/tutor to help them make the letter even more influential. The  question that Pemberton asks is how do tutors and teachers go about doing so?

                        Pemberton addresses an important issue. To what degree do we intervene in their writing process and if we do is it taking away from their personal expression. I think that these four students are not going about influencing their reader effectively. It all goes back to what Bartholomae and McCarthy wrote about writing for the reader. These students need to realize that they need to appeal to the reader to get any sort of positive reaction from them. Positive reaction is what these students want. They want their congressman to vote against destroying the environment, their English instructor to be fair, their roommate to be considerate, and they want their parents to be reasonable.

                        The tutor or teacher might just explain to the student that readers are usually turned off by attacks. The tutor should suggest that the student start their letter by creating common ground on which to lure the reader into agreeing with their points. The student should exemplify their similarities on the issues then turn around and question the congressman, parent,etc. on their actions. These students need to be told that by attacking the reader you are alienating yourself from them. In order to change their mind, or influence them in any way the writer must get so close to the reader that they can smell what kind of gum they are chewing. That involves trying to understand and appeal to the reader, not attacking them.   Elizabeth Turner, 10/18/94