Writing Assignments

Students could be assigned an essay by one of the early proponents of the form, like Francis Bacon. I realize that this would be more feasible in some high school classes than others, but I think the chosen essay could be worked through in most classes. When Bacon was introduced, I would like to also introduce the sense of "essay" the Renaissance writer would have used: "to muse". Once the assigned article was read and the genre understood (through class discussion or readers notebooks), I would suggest one or two quotes to form their own response.
The quotes would serve as a basis for their own opinion of whether or not Bacon had been successful in what he was saying. The students would use the suggested quotes as a starting point, but must include one additional quote to support their stance.
The conlusion of the reflection would contain the student's own opinion on whether the essay was the appropriate forum to make a point about whatever the writer (in this case Bacon) was aiming for, or perhaps a different style may have been more useful.
I believe that this assignment would pretty well cover all of the goals of successful reading and comprehending: content and analysis would be discussion led (or maybe in group work), while interpretation and integration would result from their own writing.

Rhetorical Reading Strategies

Summary:

This article is an exploration of the theoretical realm of rhetorical reading. Linda Flower and Christina Haas entered their unique experiment with the supposition that there may be something to the idea that if students could see their readings as a joining into an actual discourse relationship rather than a simple task of knowledge gathering, they may become more proficient readers, writers, and thinkers. The problem with a supposition, however, is that it is completely unsubstantiated. Flower and Haas attempt, after explaining their stance, etc., to construct an experiment that may shed some light onto this problem. The trouble they face, however, is that during "constructive reading" -- in which the reader gathers nodes of information into a "rich network of disparate kinds of information"-- the actual building takes place in the mind in a myriad of ways. The experiment used four "experienced" readers, and six "student" readers. All of the readers were required to assess the text at nine different points to let the testers observe how the construction was going on. The results showed that both the student and experienced readers performed equally well on the content and feature strategies of reading the passage; the experienced readers far outperformed the student readers on seeing the passage as a discourse situation through the classic tenets of rhetoric.



Response:

This article and its experiment were fascinating to me. I had never really thought of reading beyond the simple act of understanding what is being said, although I suppose I do it all of the time. I have to admit, though, that that is probably a recent development in my life as a reader. The authors don't really seem to come to any kind of conclusive state about why the experienced readers may view the passage as part of a larger discourse community. Given my own personal experience, I would suggest that perhaps this is due to their being in the college community for longer. When a passage is assigned at the University level, it is with the purpose of being useful to the student's education and is discussed and dissected, usually in class, but also in various writing assignments. I think that the longer someone is exposed to the type of discussion that brings awareness about the passage as part of a rhetorical relationship, the more their mind will begin to develop that type of thinking.
Unfortunately, this type of theory doesn't seem all that useful to me. I am not sure that this is the type of thing that can be taught by implementing some new assignment into a lesson plan. I believe that this is one of those skills (like good writing) that is achieved through a layering effect. The authors mention that the experienced readers were not dissecting their comments through strata, but that doesn't negate the fact that learning comes that way. The mind can integrate many things once it has been honed to be receptive to certain things.

Research Assignment

I have decided to focus on the issue of grammar education in public schools. I am interested in several aspects of this issue and am still kind of deciding in which way I should go. For instance, does the teaching of grammar help students write (or even speak) better? If there are any benefits to learning the mechanics of the language in your everyday life, at what point in a student's education should this be tackled? (ie elementary or highschool) Also, I am curious if perhaps the grammar itself has become antiquated and therefore not very useful in the actual workplace. I am thinking of the rules concerning gerunds and thier subjects or pronouns in the objective case. If no one knows these rules, should they be taught at all?
The final thing I have pondered is the actual method used in teaching grammar: prescriptive or descriptive? I think that I have kind of already decided that the prescriptive method of rote memorization and correctness is basically ineffectual so I guess my question would concern the descriptive method and how it would be implemented.

Designing Writing Courses

Summary:
This comprehensive chapter begins by giving the author's definition of teaching as a rhetorical activity. In other words, the purpose and audience should be considered carefully by the teacher and be ready to shift with the needs of that purpose and audience.
The second section of this chapter is a draft of the NCTE's foundation for writing courses through the act, purpose, scene, teacher, and means of writing. In each of these discussions there are goals listed that are there, theoretically, to enhance the writing course.
A discussion of "what" (process centered) and "how" (student centered) course models follows the foundational elements of any writing class. The models are discussed in detail of how the class is taught and the goals of each respectively. The process centered classes are further divided into individual and collaborative settings.
The rest of this chapter deals with the specifics of how to organize and structure any writing class effectively through the use of syllabus, weekly and daily lesson plans, and finally the teacher's actual performance.

Response:
I thought this chapter was enormously helpful. When I first read the title, I didn't really think that it would be all that beneficial for a public school teacher since, let's face it, the classes are designed for the teacher more than the other way around and the goals are usually already in place in the guise of standards and administrative expectations.
However, I was impressed with the layout. First of all, I thought the introduction to the "what" and "how" models were good because they are good tools in helping the future educator in developing their philosophy of teaching.
The sections which seemed the best, though, were those concerned with organization and teacher performance. I had never really considered the freedom which might be found in the ultra-structured arena of high school English courses, but the author gave great tips for developing your own style within the set parameters. It was also nice to get a different take on the lesson plans, since most of the ones education students see are already set. This put the lesson plan in a different perspective for me.
The final section on teacher performance was also helpful. I won't be doing my student teaching until next year but I will definitely be using Lindeman's text as a guide when I do.

Chapter Three

Summary:
This chapter is a survey of the actual process which writers go through in order to produce their work. The author begins by describing many of her own processes in writing the textbook. She does this to explore the complex system the writer must traverse: "Clearly, writing is a messy business, rarely in real life as tidy as textbooks describe it."
However, for simplicity's sake, the author does divide the steps of writing into the classic three: prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Relying heavily on Linda Flower and John Haye's various articles and books by Janet Emig and James Britton, Lindeman begins her foray into the tentative world of writing.
The prewriting section focuses on taking what we know and developing it through our self and various other social frameworks.
The writing section discusses the act of "translating" our thoughts into drafts.
Finally, the rewriting portion delves into revision through two avenues: editing, which takes care of mechanical errors, and reviewing, which is more complex and concerns the writer vacillating between internal and external revision.


Response:
I actually found this chapter really interesting because of the topic. These writing techniques are something that I use all of the time, but I haven't ever really thought of other people having to travel the same well-worn paths as myself. Who knew that when I was just in the "percolating" stage of prewriting I was actually using Platonic invention? Of course, it is true that all of our molding of ideas is influenced by other people and even other sources around us.
What I most enjoyed about this chapter, however, was the attention to our future students. These writing techniques have become second nature by this stage for us, but our students may have little to no experience approaching critical writing such as this. I think it is important to be reminded that it is our job to help "students become conscious of what they do as they plan a writing project, by modeling or discussing with students the kinds of goal-based plans we might develop in responding to an assignment...".
The most important thing I think I gleaned from all of this information is that the teacher needs to be cognizant of all of the intricacies that are occurring when effective writing is happening, and help the students move through all of these phases. We must not forget what it feels like to be a fledgling medium of the written word.

The Writing Process

When I have an assignment for a "term" paper, I typically begin by simply thinking about it. Whenever the assignment comes around on my "things to do" docket in my head, I try to think about a topic that will fit nicely with the assignment and that I am interested in learning more about or exploring further. Once I have my topic, I begin to take notes in my writing notebook. These pages of notes will be what I sit down with to draft my paper. The pages are usually covered with sloppy handwriting, arrows, and big spaces between unrelated ideas. When I finally sit down to draft my paper I use these notes and any sources that I may be incorporating. This first draft is really tough for me and I always dread it more than any other. I am attempting to suture my ideas-- to coalesce my mental ramblings into an actual paper. When I type my paper is my second revision, the one in which I give my rough draft paragraphs, nice wording, etc. I always revise one more time, with a hard copy of my second draft.
This process, though, is only for "big" papers. For any writing assignment I begin in the same way: just thinking about the format and topic for my assignment. I will usually still write a draft down on paper, just to help myself work through how I want to organize my thoughts. Sometimes, I don't even use this hand-written drat when I actually type my paper because the format is already in my head.
Now that I've written this, it occurs to me that I tend to cushion the more difficult assignments with as many steps and revisions as possible.

Robert Fulkerson's "Four Philosophies of Comnposition"

Summary:
Robert Fulkerson's "Four Philosophies of Composition" is basically what the title implies. He uses four theories of literary criticism to build his new philosophies, which include reader- based writing (rhetorical), writer-based writing (expressive), reality-based writing (mimetic), and writing which emphasizes the actual structure of writing (formalist). When describing each of these philosophies separately, he gives examples of writers and texts which correspond to them.
In essence, these theories are nothing new, Fulkerson takes the idea of composition instruction a crucial step further: he contends that the most important element of teaching any of these theories is to actually focus on one at a time. The article also includes statements on ways which these theories can be used to shape pedagogical standing and beliefs.

Response:
On the whole, I enjoyed this article very much. I thought the writing was clear and concise and his theories well-thought out as well as recognizable.
I believe Fulkerson is correct in his assumption that one of the most important tasks for a teacher is effective communication of the goals of any given assignment and the subsequent evaluation of those goals. This is especially true for novice writers who may not be as confident in their abilities as someone a bit more seasoned. If a student is shaky in their abilities and receives a garbles set of instructions and a mediocre grade, no valuable work has been accomplished by the instructor or the student.
The only thing I thought may have been a tad overstated was Fulkerson's stringent stance that a teacher should maintain one and only one of these philosophies to shape their composition class. He states that "composition teachers either fail to have a consistent value theory or fail to let that philosophy shape pedagogy". I simply don't understand why all of these theories cannot be effectively compartmentalized by specific assignments, therefore still existing harmoniously in the same classroom.

Lost in the Woods: Teaching Composition Theory

I chose to use Robert Fulkerson's "Four Philosophies of Composition" to analyze my textbook, Problem Solving Strategies for Writing by Linda Flower.
There are several statements in the preface which describe the type of instruction being attempted by the author of this book. Flower acknowledges several times the importance of writing for the academic "community" and the student joining this ongoing conversation which seems to suggest the rhetorical function. I think this is probably the most solidly explored of Fulkerson's four theories, though even this is only discussed in two chapters.
Another chapter draws on the mimetic theory by touching on the importance of research, yet this is only a brief diversion at the very end of the book. There is another section earlier in the book which focuses on the expressive by showing the student how to "construct their own internal, mental representations of meaning". These two things seem at odds with one another when viewed even equally, and given the fact that the research element isn't even brought up until so far in the text, it underscores the division of approaches.
The formalist theory is barely brought up at all. In fact, the only nod to the actual mechanics of writing (which so many composition students struggle with) is in the 5th Chapter, which "shows students how to look at language".
It seems that this book does have a general emphasis, and that is Fulkerson's rhetorical theory. However, it seems that the information and approaches are presented in such a convoluted fashion, as to only contribute to the "mindlessness" which Fulkerson so despaired over.

Chapter One: Summary and Response

Summary
This chapter introduces the concept of effective writing instruction. The chapter begins by describing some of the difficulties which can arise when trying to effectively teach writing as a skill. One of the major hurdles a new teacher of writing may face is that of convincing her students that writing is indeed important and worthy of not only their time, but also their consideration.
The author gives two pragmatic reasons for the teaching and the learning of writing, while also appealing to the higher causes of self-enlightenment and imagination. Perhaps the listed reasons of writing for economic power, knowledge, and social inclusion can effectively blend "discipline and imagination" for students of all strata.

Response
As with most anything that we must filter through our brains, I found things I liked and others that didn't appeal to me.
For instance, I thought the discussion was a bit heavy on the "social necessity" section. Although the idea of remembering and organizing our lives is a very practical and necessary function arising from language, I don't really think this is a worthy endeavor for the teacher of writing. After all, these things either fall into place or they don't. Everyone will have to make lists but some people don't think to record their daily lives in journals or even a daily planner.
I think that the "lockstep instruction in prose mechanics" that is so handily dismissed by the authors is a result of our psychologically obsessed society. Many high-school writing programs have made it their mission to simply get kids writing, and ignore the most fundamental rules of grammar in doing so. While I think that a balance does need to be found between the two extremes, I don't feel confident that a desirable solution is being sought.