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.