To be honest, these articles were okay to me. I feel like I did learn but only certain parts really caught my attention. For example, in Cynthia L. Selfe article “The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing” I really liked the section “A Short History of Aurality in College Composition Classrooms” (619). Two things I really found interesting to read in this section was the discussion of “women during this period” and “black citizens” (Selfe 623). I’m a woman and black, and I have always been interested in works, movies, or anything that talks about our struggle. Talking about several groups of people was an effective technique to get readers attracted or interested in her article.

Continuing, I also liked how Selfe’s article mentioned a technique discussed in another article read for this class, and a technique that I recall a teacher in our class saying she used herself in her classroom during one of our discussions. One of the techniques I am referring to is “audio taping in the composition classroom as a way of recording the texts of small-group interactions and responding to these texts with her own suggestions, observations, and remarks” (Selfe 633). Moreover, my overall impression of this article is a lot of people would be open and even embrace Selfe’s argument now. I actually think as a society we have overcome a lot of the close minded opinions mentioned in the article. I feel like she would be proud of where we are now. Lastly, my mother has always told me, “You need to take computer classes. Everything deals with computers now.” As I take more and more classes, I’m starting to realize my mother is right. I also think more people are embracing a statement by Elizabeth Daley in Kathleen Blake Yancey’s article “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key” which is “The ability to negotiate through life by combining words with pictures with audio and video to express thoughts will be the mark of the educated student’ ” (305). In my opinion sooner or later that will change, and the real challenge will always be remaining open minded and keeping up.

These two articles honestly had me at a standstill about what to say and all I could think about was the discussions in my classes. I think some of my classmates would agree with the argument Mark Wiley makes in “The Popularity of Formulaic Writing (And Why We Need to Resist)” while at the same time there would be students like me who find the argument interesting but honestly never really thought about it the way the author discussed. Some statements did stand out to me though. For example, the statement Connors and Lunsford make that “teachers do not have to spend a lot of time writing terminal comments to justify a grade, which is often the purpose of our teacherly remarks on student work” (qtd. in Wiley 63). This quotation goes against what I thought responses were for or the goal of responses, and I feel like it goes against some of our previous readings. Continuing, I also felt some type of way about the quote “the method imposes—a simple solution for sequencing a writing curriculum, but one based on what’s easy for teachers and not necessarily what’s best for students” (Wiley 63). I think both of these quotes just make some teachers look really bad and demonstrate how some teachers fail to focus on what’s more important. I think this article does a great job convincing their audience or just making them think in general about their viewpoint or their position on the topic discussed.

Furthermore, “Why the ‘Research Paper’ Isn’t Working” by Barbara Fister made me think about a comment made in my writing center class by my professor Dr. Kathryn L Inskeep. One class period we were talking about citation styles and she said, “Why should anyone listen to what you have to say if you can’t follow the rules?” I never really thought about it that way, but my professor made a great point. We further discussed in class how a lot the rules we have to follow are to “prepare us.” I think it is interesting that Mark Wiley’s article makes you question whether you were truly prepared.

I like the way Richard Straub set up his article “The Concept of Control in Teacher Response: Defining the Varieties of ‘Directive’ and ‘Facilitative’ Commentary.” What stood out in this article, were the different examples he provided. To be honest, I liked the “directive response” example (Straub 227). In my senior seminar class with Dr. Nira Gupta-Casale, I learned you can help a student but that student still has to interpret what you are saying. In addition, the student still has to go home and figure out ways to apply everything and sometimes that can be challenging. Continuing, I like how Peter Elbow says, “I’d be happy to talk more about this in a conference” (Straub 243). The comment lets students know he is willing to clear any confusion and elaborate. I prefer conferencing myself so I love when teachers are open and welcoming to students seeing them during office hours. I also thought Anne Gere’s and Jane Peterson’s comments were effective as well.

Continuing, this article once again reminded me of my writing center theory and practice class because the article uses terms presented in that class and it makes statements that I think a lot of people in the writing center would agree with. I like the stance “we should not reject all directive styles of response any more than we should all adopt some standard facilitative style” (Straub 246). With Straub’s article, learning was easier because it tied into things discussed in my other class. Moreover, I liked reading Straub’s article a little more than I liked reading “Looking Back as We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing Assessment” by Kathleen Blake Yancey. I do feel like I learned in Yancey’s article, and I liked the questions proposed.

 

I liked John C. Bean’s “Using Rubrics to Develop and Apply Grading Criteria.” I liked the position he took in his article, and I liked his own personal technique as well. I feel like his technique will possibly make more students satisfied especially since he embraces more than one method of feedback. In addition, I liked how he pointed out some of the same things the reader may be thinking while reading his article. For example he says, “Although this process might seem time-consuming, I believe it leads to fairer and more thoughtful grades because each paper receives a score from both a holistic and an analytic perspective” (Bean 281). From reading his article, I get the sense that Bean is great at what he does, is open minded, and dedicated to students’ success. I am not sure if other teachers will be willing to do everything he does.

Furthermore, I did not know there were so many different rubrics. Actually, I do not recall any of my teachers using one of the rubrics I really liked within the article. I like when a teacher writes out how they feel about my paper or assignment, and that is why I embraced the “Analytic Rubric with Non-Grid Design” (Bean 277). I also like to know exactly what a teacher is looking for so I favored the “Task-Specific Rubric for a Genre” as well (Bean 273). Moreover, Bean’s article made me think about a teacher I currently have when he started talking about the dilemma with rubrics. Although I liked some of the rubrics proposed, if I become a teacher in the future I am not sure if I will use them. When I was younger, I believe giving me certain numbers did affect me.

“Teaching Composition in the Multilingual World Second Language Writing in Composition Studies” by Paul Kei Matsuda was interesting to read. I learned a lot about what “multilingual writers” go through (Matsuda 38). Certain sections the author called attention to, made me think about my writing center theory and practice class. For example, my class just got done reading about “WAC/WID” and some points Matsuda brings up in his discussion did not cross my mind (47). In fact, a lot of the suggestions Muriel Harris and Tony Silva give in “Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options” I have heard before during discussions in my writing center class. Furthermore I agree with a lot of the points Matsuda raises, especially “it is time to start thinking more seriously about how to prepare monolingual students to write like the rest of the world” (50). Although I agree with this point, I am a little worried. I would love to know and write others languages fluently but if some people have so many difficulties learning English I imagine learning another language being twice as hard. I remember deciding to stop learning Spanish after my third year in high school because the exam was so difficult. In my high school, the fourth year was the year really dedicated to writing in Spanish. I stopped before I even got to the most challenging part, and I was already struggling. I just have a feeling that I would be struggling and stressing, and I prefer not to go through that unless I have to.

A part of me feels like it is not fair to have “ESL writers” go through so much and learn English fully while some people have the option to fully learn another language (Matsuda 38). The years they require us to take in school were not enough and after reading Matsuda it does not compare to what others go through to learn English. In my opinion, all you really needed to know was enough to pass the tests. Lastly, I like how Matsuda gave some suggestions in his article that would possibly make things fair for “multilingual writers” (38). Moreover, these articles make you think about your own actions.

https://docs.google.com/a/kean.edu/document/d/1hoAIft37LKnpl7-vyce4z2PGKunVbkvVI4r0T6Tx8hQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

            Donald M. Murray the author of “Teach the Motivating Force of Revision” is very different. Murray says, “I prefer to teach beginning students, especially remedial students. The reluctant writers have no idea of the importance and excitement of writing, . . .” (58). Murray is different to me because he welcomes these students instead of becoming annoyed like the teachers described in Bean’s article “Writing Comments on Students’ Papers.”

Murray’s article actually reminds me of Bean’s article because it provided tips for teachers to engage in. For example Murray says, “That is why I turn eagerly to my students’ papers. Not to correct them, never to correct them-that is their job-but to find out what they have to say, to see their worlds through their eyes” (58). Normally, I would be upset if a teacher did not correct my paper, but I feel like he is coming from a sincere place. I think this move is chosen to encourage the writer and to show interest. I think students would appreciate this if it is done in the correct way. Students would appreciate him being open to all different types of writing.

Continuing, I agree with him when he says, “most language arts and English teachers do not appreciate the importance or the excitement of revision” (Murray 56). In my opinion, a lot of teachers use revision for the reason he provides in his article and if time permits. Normally, I revise in a class if the instructor has fit it into our schedule. In conclusion, this article was interesting to me because he engages in actions that are contrary to what I am use to. I feel like he has a goal and he is doing a great job trying to accomplish it.

Final Project

Title: Embracing the Writer

This title was inspired by Donald M. Murray’s article “Teach the Motivating Force of Revision.” Embracing the Writer is embracing the writer’s voice or their search for their voice. I also feel like it captures that writing moment because in that moment the audience embraced you. This is just an idea. I am open to something better.

 

           Donald M. Murray the author of “Teach the Motivating Force of Revision” is very different. Murray says, “I prefer to teach beginning students, especially remedial students. The reluctant writers have no idea of the importance and excitement of writing, . . . "(58). Murray is different to me because he welcomes these students instead of becoming annoyed like the teachers described in Bean’s article “Writing Comments on Students’ Papers.”

Murray’s article actually reminds me of Bean’s article because it provided tips for teachers to engage in. For example Murray says, “That is why I turn eagerly to my students’ papers. Not to correct them, never to correct them-that is their job-but to find out what they have to say, to see their worlds through their eyes” (58). Normally, I would be upset if a teacher did not correct my paper, but I feel like he is coming from a sincere place. I think this move is chosen to encourage the writer and to show interest. I think students would appreciate this if it is done in the correct way. Students would appreciate him being open to all different types of writing.

Continuing, I agree with him when he says, “most language arts and English teachers do not appreciate the importance or the excitement of revision” (Murray 56). In my opinion, a lot of teachers use revision for the reason he provides in his article and if time permits. Normally, I revise in a class if the instructor has fit it into our schedule. In conclusion, this article was interesting to me because he engages in actions that are contrary to what I am use to. I feel like he has a goal and he is doing a great job trying to accomplish it.

Final Project

Title: Embracing the Writer

This title was inspired by Donald M. Murray’s article “Teach the Motivating Force of Revision.” Embracing the Writer is embracing the writer’s voice or their search for their voice. I also feel like it captures that writing moment because in that moment the audience embraced you. This is just an idea. I am open to something better.

 

https://docs.google.com/a/kean.edu/document/d/1KEddhXUwFtYFFSfgiJPU09EtRAhIXAvWt2N04901sRM/edit?usp=sharing

I think voice is a very difficult subject, and I often find myself questioning what voice means exactly. Sometimes, I feel like I am the only one with questions or the topic should already be understood so I do not want to ask questions. The fact Peter Elbow says, “ ‘Voice’ is too vague a metaphor to be useful. It means so many things to so many people that it leads to confusion and undermines clear thinking about texts” makes me feel better and not alone (182).

When I previously thought about voice, I think my mind went to uniqueness or difference. My understanding was it is “used to point to a feature that’s found only in some writing —yet it’s also commonly used to point to a feature found in all writing” (Elbow 182). In fact, Peter Elbow’s article “Reconsiderations: Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries” actually made me think of a topic discussed in my other class which was diversity. In terms of diversity in writing, how much is contributed to voice? In addition, this article also made me reflect on my own experience. I wish I could remember how I use to write back in grammar school. I think it would be interesting to see the changes in my writing.

            In conclusion, I like the position Peter Elbow takes in this article. He shows that in some cases choosing a side is not always necessary. He fully articulates both sides. Readers basically got to see how other scholars view or define voice, the benefits of voice, and the negative side of voice. We think about our own writing and our own voice. We think about what we as readers focus on when we read. Readers also think about how important voice is. Moreover, we think about the books that inspired us. What were the elements within the book that made it our favorite? Did voice serve as a big factor in making it your favorite?

 

 Final Project

I’m fine with the ideas proposed last class about our final project. I would still like to do a poem on either “Why I Write” or “That Writing Moment.”  In terms of “Digital Writing Month” maybe we can post our drafts for the piece we are working on for our final project.

Hartwell’s article “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar” discusses the arguments, definitions, and complications of grammar. Because I use to struggle with grammar, this article was very interesting to me. I honestly like the argument proposed because it was contrary to what I am used to hearing. My past has been filled with teachers who place a lot of emphasis on grammar. I think if I was exposed to more teachers who took less of an interest in grammar, writing would have always been interesting to me. I still question how my writing would have turned out without grammar corrections and practice, and I am still very grateful for my past experience. I like the fact Hartwell’s article makes me question my own explanation to the question “how did you learn to write” by Dr. Zamora.

Furthermore the comment by Richard H. Haswell “that his students correct 61.1 % of their errors when they are identified with a simple mark in the margin rather than by error type” made me think about Nancy Sommers’s article “Responding to Student Writing” (Hartwell 121). I think it is very interesting that the feedback was not considered vague. In addition as I read the articles for this class and reflect on our class discussions, I am learning that the least expected topics or the topics we may think are completely understood are actually the topics that are unclear, confusing, and require a lot of research. In “Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgment” by Peter Elbow I learned a different technique or style of teaching that made me think about my teaching experience. Elbow's article also helped me understand some of the practices my teachers engage in more. In conclusion, I like how these articles presented both their positions on the issue and the contrary. I also liked how Elbow's article showed the highlights of his position and the downfalls. Both articles helped me to think about and possibly expand my viewpoint.

                                                          Final Project

I would like to write a poem or give examples of how I journal. I think this will give me the chance to show how I express myself outside of school.

 

          The first thing I said to myself when reading “Responding to Student Writing” by Nancy Sommers is teachers spend all that time on papers but some of that time fails to be reflected. This article served as evidence for my thoughts. Nancy Sommers’s article ended up showing the downside or ineffectiveness of teachers’ comments. The article highlights how some comments are basically pointless.

            Continuing, I learned the importance of a person or place that helps students beyond grammar corrections, and I further see how important effective communication is. I thought about my own papers. I also thought about an article read in my writing center class entitled “Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work” by Jeff Brooks. Jeff Brooks was advocating writing centers that help students by engaging in techniques that removes grammar among other things from the equation. At first, I was a little reluctant. As I read more articles and my understanding of the approach increased, I now feel differently. “Responding to Student Writing” makes me appreciate or value the teachers in my life who were specific more. I would rather feel overwhelmed with a lot to do than have a teacher who did not care what I did or wanted me to figure everything out.

            Furthermore, when reading “On Reflection” by Yancey I never realized how many different understandings and viewpoints can be established just from hearing the word reflection. But, I understood how several of those definitions can be used to describe the term. I loved the statement “reflection makes possible a new kind of learning as well as a new kind of teaching” (Yancey 8). I agree with this quote and it makes me think about what reflection has done for me. Yancey's article makes me appreciate reflection so much more.

Final Project Comments

I’m leaning more towards the Handbook for Writers. I would like to discuss the co-written publication a little more. I also hope our conversation will lead into a discussion about the mock syllabi with lesson plans. Since I have an interest in becoming a teacher, this will give me an opportunity to learn how to do a lesson plan.

The first thing I said to myself when reading “Responding to Student Writing” by Nancy Sommers is teachers spend all that time on papers but some of that time fails to be reflected. This article served as evidence for my thoughts. Nancy Sommers’s article ended up showing the downside or ineffectiveness of teachers’ comments. The article highlights how some comments are basically pointless.

            Continuing, I learned the importance of a person or place that helps students beyond grammar corrections, and I further see how important effective communication is. I thought about my own papers. I also thought about an article read in my writing center class entitled “Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work” by Jeff Brooks. Jeff Brooks was advocating writing centers that help students by engaging in techniques that removes grammar among other things from the equation. At first, I was a little reluctant. As I read more articles and my understanding of the approach increased, I now feel differently. “Responding to Student Writing” makes me appreciate or value the teachers in my life who were specific more. I would rather feel overwhelmed with a lot to do than have a teacher who did not care what I did or wanted me to figure everything out.

            Furthermore, when reading “On Reflection” by Yancey I never realized how many different understandings and viewpoints can be established just from hearing the word reflection. But, I understood how several of those definitions can be used to describe the term. I loved the statement “reflection makes possible a new kind of learning as well as a new kind of teaching” (Yancey 8). I agree with this quote and it makes me think about what reflection has done for me. Yancey's article makes me appreciate reflection so much more.

Final Project Comments

I’m leaning more towards the Handbook for Writers. I would like to discuss the co-written publication a little more. I also hope our conversation will lead into a discussion about the mock syllabi with lesson plans. Since I have an interest in becoming a teacher, this will give me an opportunity to learn how to do a lesson plan.

Quanesha Burr

            “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” by Richard Fulkerson is an informative and challenging piece to read. In the article, Fulkerson explains “the variant contemporary approaches to teaching college writing” (658). He gives his readers a description of each techniques strengths and weaknesses, and he highlights four main areas he wants his audience to pay attention to. Fulkerson goal is to prove or show disconnection and issues which are more evident “early in the twenty-first century than it had appeared to be around 1990” (654). In my opinion, he does a great job trying to defend his assertions or prove his points. Readers become frustrated just by trying to understand and read his article. The audience is constantly trying to grasp all the information he provides which proves there is just too much going on in general. After reading this article, I would like to know more about what was occurring in 1990. From previous readings, extreme turmoil existed way before now.

Furthermore, I lacked knowledge about “critical/cultural studies [CCS], (2) expressivism, and (3) procedural rhetoric” (Fulkerson 655). This article helped me to really learn about all three and it also made me think about a conversation the class engaged in. While reading Fulkerson’s article, I started thinking about the question Dr. Zamora asked which was “How were you taught to write?” When I was reading this article, I really wished there was more of a variety or uniqueness to the way in which I was taught. I really liked “expressivist composition” (Fulkerson 666). I wish I was a student who experienced a teacher engaging in this technique.  What this technique engages in or practices can be compared to the way I write now.

 Moreover, one main point Fulkerson makes that stuck out to me was “the actual question of what is good writing is more problematic than ever” (681). This quotation goes back to a comment I made in class about students constantly having to adjust to their teachers. Effective writing to one teacher may not be effective writing to another.