SGarza.AfterReadingConnors3 History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

Changed lines 161-162 from:
'''Collaborative Pedagogy:''' This chapter discusses pretty much what I thought it would, students working collaboratively on an assignment. However, there is much more than just that covered in this chapter. For example, "because composition studies includes pedagogy as a central concern, collaboration holds a particular fascination for the discipline" (54). When I was a freshman, I did not have to take composition (i had dual-credit in high school) and when I heard my seminar students were to be put in writing groups, I was unsure of how this would pan out because I never experienced it. But, after watching how my students work in their groups, I think its a great idea, so I really enjoyed this article. On page 59, quoting Roskelly, Howard mentions, "to employ small-group pedagogy is to decenter the classroom, opening it up to difference and dissent, and teachers must welcome rather than squelch such responses." Furthermore, dividing large classes into smaller groups offers all students the opportunity to talk. These groups can be formulated for discussion, problem solving or accomplishment of certain tasks" (59). This could backfire, of course, as many of my students tend to get off topic, but I do my best to keep them focused. I thought it was interesting that Howard discussed the notion of writer/text collaboration, because I assumed this essay would be mainly about student collaborations. I never thought of this as collaborative pedagogy, simply because its been drilled into my head to cite sources to avoid plagiarism.
to:
'''Collaborative Pedagogy:''' This chapter discusses pretty much what I thought it would, students working collaboratively on an assignment. However, there is much more than just that covered in this chapter. For example, "because composition studies includes pedagogy as a central concern, collaboration holds a particular fascination for the discipline" (54). When I was a freshman, I did not have to take composition (i had dual-credit in high school) and when I heard my seminar students were to be put in writing groups, I was unsure of how this would pan out because I never experienced it. But, after watching how my students work in their groups, I think its a great idea, so I really enjoyed this article. On page 59, quoting Roskelly, Howard mentions, "to employ small-group pedagogy is to decenter the classroom, opening it up to difference and dissent, and teachers must welcome rather than squelch such responses." Furthermore, dividing large classes into smaller groups offers all students the opportunity to talk. These groups can be formulated for discussion, problem solving or accomplishment of certain tasks"(59). This could backfire, of course, as many of my students tend to get off topic, but I do my best to keep them focused. I thought it was interesting that Howard discussed the notion of writer/text collaboration, because I assumed this essay would be mainly about student collaborations. I never thought of this as collaborative pedagogy, simply because its been drilled into my head to cite sources to avoid plagiarism.
Deleted line 216:
<<<<<<<
Changed lines 218-219 from:
=======
<<<<<<<
to:
=======
Changed lines 254-255 from:
Unfortunately, many also disagree on some of the methods like writing centers. Some teachers regard writing center assistance as a form of plagiarism because they fear the assistants their writing for (58). These critics believe that writing centers can assist students collaboratively without interfering with the content and style of the writer, which leads to another argument brought into view by Howard: Collaborative Writing. Writing has always been looked upon as an individual task in the educational world, so the thought of collaborative writing within the classroom brings up negative views by critics who believe this can lead to plagiarism as well. I can see how collaborative writing might be a difficult task for teachers to undertake within the classroom and I also agree with the reasons why they feel this is a difficult task, but I also believe it can be a positive and rewarding learning experience for students if the suggestions listed on pages 62-66 are followed by the teacher. There are always going to be issues that both students and teacher will have to face, but the benefits may far outweigh the negative implications.
to:
Unfortunately, many also disagree on some of the methods like writing centers. Some teachers regard writing center assistance as a form of plagiarism because they fear the assistants their writing for (58). These critics believe that writing centers can assist students collaboratively without interfering with the content and style of the writer, which leads to another argument brought into view by Howard: Collaborative Writing. Writing has always been looked upon as an individual task in the educational world, so the thought of collaborative writing within the classroom brings up negative views by critics who believe this can lead to plagiarism as well. I can see how collaborative writing might be a difficult task for teachers to undertake within the classroom and I also agree with the reasons why they feel this is a difficult task, but I also believe it can be a positive and rewarding learning experience for students if the suggestions listed on pages 62-66 are followed by the teacher. There are always going to be issues that both students and teacher will have to face, but the benefits may far outweigh the negative implications.
Changed lines 284-288 from:
Cultural Studies- I always think of the 1920's, or beatnicks and Hippies when I think of cultural studies. These all represent times when people formed groups and new pop cultural movements in response to the economy or politics of that time. I also think that cultural studies has strong roots in Marxism because many times these social groups form in response to economic and class differences caused by capitalism.
=======
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<
to:
Cultural Studies- I always think of the 1920's, or beatnicks and Hippies when I think of cultural studies. These all represent times when people formed groups and new pop cultural movements in response to the economy or politics of that time. I also think that cultural studies has strong roots in Marxism because many times these social groups form in response to economic and class differences caused by capitalism.
Deleted lines 355-356:
---------------
>>>>>>>
Added lines 290-316:
<<<<<<<
-------
'''Sami H.'''

'''After reading Tate'''

Collaborative Pedagogy: Rebecca Moore Howard

Like anything else in English, collaborative pedagogy has both proponents and opponents. Some feel that it is not necessary to the teaching of composition, while others feel that it can enhance students' experience of writing classes. Rhetorician Susan Miller best describes these collaborative pedagogies as "workshops". When I thought of a collaborative pedagogy, writing workshops came to my mind.

Howard goes on to list some of the benefits of coll. ped.; like student engagement, the leveling of the student-teacher hierarchy, or the student practice in common forms of work-place writing.

Next, we are given the different methods of collaborative pedagogy. 1. we have collaborative learning; which usually consists of a small-group pedagogy that limits teacher control. 2nd. we have collaborative writing, which can be the trickiest. Howard states, "when students are assigned to write together, a variety of problems can arise". Despite the problems that can occur, I have experienced how effective this method can be. In order to help combat the problems that can arise, Howard lists 9 steps that can help control and limit the potential problems.

The last method of collaborative pedagogy mentioned is the writer/text collaboration. In the past, this was largely filled with quotes, paraphrases,summaries, and even plagiarism. It is now being viewed as collaborative. Overall, it was a pretty simple chapter.

Cultural Studies and Composition: Diana George and John Trimbur

According to George and Trimbur, "cultural studies is the latest import of theory into composition". On the surface, this makes sense after taking Dr. E's community literacy class. Culture would constantly creep its way into our conversations, and for good reason.

Little was I aware of how much the Reagan-Bush years affected cultural studies. Movements like,"Back to basics" , put "a new emphasis on multiculturalism, the politics of literacy, and the implications of race, class, and gender for the study and teaching of writing".

We are then told of a cluster of works by Hoggart, Williams, and Thompson published between the 50's and 60's, that "marked a decisive break with established ways of thinking about culture, literature, and history" in regards to cultural studies.
While cultural studies entered composition, many felt that it needed an explanation for being there. Men like Trimbur were the first to produce works in its defense. For Trimbur, cultural studies allows us to "represent students and adult learners stigmatized as uneducable because of cognitive deficiencies, the culture of poverty, or the restricted codes of oral culture".
Cultural studies allows and requires the use of popular culture also; which would explain its popularity among students. However, some scholars think that cultural studies can force leftist ideologies on vulnerable young people. I guess there will always be debates. Overall, this was an O.K. chapter. Not as interesting as the previous two, but I guess they are necessary.
-----
=======
Changed lines 362-363 from:
---------------
to:
---------------
>>>>>>>
Added lines 291-335:
------------
Ben

Connors
Ch4
In chapter 4 Connors discusses the move of rhetoric into the university, and how it found its place within the university

community. I found all of the talk about class systems within a university to be interesting. It doesn't really seem like there

could have ever been a university without a class system, even if they were looked at as elite institutions and any member of

the university was thought to be outstanding. Connors states that it didn't really find a place until later, but I would think that

between different departments there would have been considerations of class. In any case, rhetoric changed this, and

Connors thinks that the reason it was so hard to find composition teachers and the reason they were looked down upon is

because there was no PhD in rhetoric.

Ch5
The point of chapter 5 is to show the shift of rhetoric into a more complex study that accomplishes more than just verbal

debate. He talks a lot about the Scottish rhetoric movement and how out of that grew the most significant advances in

rhetoric since Aristotle. One of the most significant things mentioned in this chapter, I thought, was Bain's "various kinds of

composition." There are three kinds of informative composition: description, narration, and exposition. Anything that's

persuasive simply falls under "persuasion." It's like speech class all over again.

Tate
Collaborative Pedagogy
My first response is "really?" I'd never realized before that if you break "teaching" into all the microscopic atomic particles,

every single aspect gets its own pedagogy. Why? I propose "teaching pedagogy," but I digress.

I think I'm frustrated because this chapter seemed like a whole bunch of common sense, so I don't know what to say about it. Working in groups is good because different people bring different things to the table, and might point out things you don't realize. Sometimes you can't rely on your group members. Sometimes your group members can't rely on you. Sometimes you're going to get your feelings hurt. Group work works better if you are comfortable with the people in your group. Thanks social science.

Cultural Studies
I'm going to have to wait for class discussion on this one because I have no idea what they are trying to tell me.

I really have trouble figuring out what to write on these things.

---------------
---------------
Added lines 218-220:
'''Marilyn'''Connors-
=======
<<<<<<<
Added line 279:
>>>>>>>
Added lines 281-287:
<<<<<<<

'''Marilyn'''
Tate- I think the most useful part of collaborative writing work is to allow students to initiate their own collaborative work. Typically, the main reason why students have a strong disdain for collaborative work is because it is forced upon them, and they usually have to work with people who they either do not like or do not do any work. I think students should always have, at least, half of their collaborative work in groups they initiate themselves.

Cultural Studies- I always think of the 1920's, or beatnicks and Hippies when I think of cultural studies. These all represent times when people formed groups and new pop cultural movements in response to the economy or politics of that time. I also think that cultural studies has strong roots in Marxism because many times these social groups form in response to economic and class differences caused by capitalism.
=======
Added line 290:
>>>>>>>
Deleted line 216:
'''Marilyn'''
Added lines 218-243:
'''Sami H.'''

'''After reading Connors chapter 4'''

The history behind comp. and rhet. has continued to fascinate me. Connors does a good job of making me aware of what I had taken for granted before. Honestly, I believe that this is exactly Connors' purpose for writing such a book. Never before was I aware of how much German academia influenced our early schools. Prior to this chapter, I usually thought of German scientists when discussing pre-WWI and WWII Germany, and not comp. and rhet.

Dramatic shifts occur between the 18 and 1900s. Connors states that the two most important changes were: "1. the shift from old-style undergraduate colleges, to a system of large university-based essentially on the German model, and 2. the shift from oral to written discourse within rhetorical training, with its result an incredible rise in the amount of individual academic work that each teacher must do."

The grad. course we are taking now did not just appear out of nowhere. Connors explains the whole process of how graduate courses came to be, and how America went from being heavily influenced by German schooling, to be the leading authority for graduate schooling. Despite these changes, rhetoric in universities was still undervalued since it could not be scientifically studied (the way Germans had studied all fields). Rhetoricians, simply, were not as glorified as they were during the Grecco-Roman times, or as plentiful as social scientists, chemists, psychologists, or mathematicians during the years mentioned in the chapter.

Finally, by the 1880's, the modern English department started arriving on many of the new universities in America. However, the rise of PhD's in America started the demise of rhetoric as a discipline, mainly because there were no rhetoric PhD's. This eventually caused a shift away from rhetoric and comp., and more towards literature and philology. Men like Fred Newton Scott, of Michigan, were very important behind the making of rhetoric-based PhD's.

Once again, Connors discusses the creation of a freshman course at Harvard, and how that changed schooling in ways that are still in effect today. During that time, written instruction and rhetoric changed radically. Overwork started becoming a major problem for professors of composition. Connors explains that, "Composition courses of the latter 19th century became hells of overwork that drove away all those teachers who were upwardly mobile and ground down those who were not".

This "overwork" for the professors started the implementation of allowing graduate students to teach lower-division courses. (Just like all our seminar and comp. teachers now.) All these changes in rhet. and comp. have shaped our schooling experiences drastically. Connors does a good job of making the reader appreciate the process that went behind making Phd's in English available, and how English departments arrived.

'''After reading Connors chapter 5'''

Discourse taxonomies are the subject of chapter 5. He states, "composition -rhetoric in all its phases has been one of the most taxonomic of rhetorical systems, addicted to classificaitons of discourse, figure, style, and other elements of writing".

With early taxonomies, Adam Smith became a "ground-breaking thinker" because of his classes of discourse. Connors also tells of George Campbell importance to rhetorical theory. Campbell was fascinated by how different sorts of discourse were determined by which faculties (like understanding, imagination,passions, or will)were being addressed.

Also during these early years, we have the evolution of multimodal pedagogies; which eventually led to a divorce of rhetoric from composition. While
=======
'''Marilyn'''
<<<<<<<
Added line 278:
>>>>>>>
Added lines 218-250:
<<<<<<<
I thought it was interesting to read about the development of graduate programs in America. It only seems logical to me that university structures and hierarchies will change as the demographic of college students changes. It seems like change is a really hot topic in Composition and Rhetoric. For example, "why is it changing?" or "why has rhetoric lost popularity?" Is rhet/ comp mostly just a study of the history of itself? Perhaps rhetoric drags its feet to change with everything else. I blame rhetoric itself for its own decline in popularity.

----
*'''Lorena'''
Tate--
Collaborative Moore Howard

I found the varying views pointed out by Howard very interesting. Collaborative Pedagogy exactly what I thought it would be, but I think I was close in my assumptions that students and teachers work together to broaden the thought process and understand the readings better. Group discussions and peer response, as we have practiced not only in this course, but in previous classes taken throughout our educational lives are proof that some types of collaboration are beneficial to students. Collaboration is beneficial because it a way of engaging students more deeply with the (56). Many of the critics agree on certain types of collaboration, such as group discussion, being a positive aspect for this type of pedagogy.

Unfortunately, many also disagree on some of the methods like writing centers. Some teachers regard writing center assistance as a form of plagiarism because they fear the assistants their writing for (58). These critics believe that writing centers can assist students collaboratively without interfering with the content and style of the writer, which leads to another argument brought into view by Howard: Collaborative Writing. Writing has always been looked upon as an individual task in the educational world, so the thought of collaborative writing within the classroom brings up negative views by critics who believe this can lead to plagiarism as well. I can see how collaborative writing might be a difficult task for teachers to undertake within the classroom and I also agree with the reasons why they feel this is a difficult task, but I also believe it can be a positive and rewarding learning experience for students if the suggestions listed on pages 62-66 are followed by the teacher. There are always going to be issues that both students and teacher will have to face, but the benefits may far outweigh the negative implications.

Cultural Studies and George and John Trimbur

This essay close to what I assumed it would be about. I guess that has to do with what you think is and if you have a familiarity with the topic. In the essay, I feel the best description of what cultural studies means in relation to composition is for students become better writers and readers as citizens, workers, and critics of their (80). I realize this topic was so political and the cultural aspect deals more with class status, at least as described by some of the critics, but as we see through reading on, it deals with race, ethnicity, and feminism as well. Although these topics touched as much, there is a definite link to cultural studies on a much broader sense. Culture deals with many aspects of our daily lives from work, to social status, to our sex and skin color.

Cultural studies has given us a new way of about culture, literature, and history, thereby constituting what Stuart Hall calls caesura out of (73). However, this topic has also raised some controversial issues concerning particular the relation of composition to mass communication and popular (79). Some see mass media as a threat to literacy and composition in the form of plagiarism which is a topic brought up in the previous essay dealing with collaborative writing. I believe the point to focus on is that in writing, cultural studies gives the writer content not previously looked at as substantial such as their own personal experiences and their life challenges from a cultural perspective as the authors point out on page 82. Everyone has a story to tell and where we live and how we are raised have a lot to do with developing our own personal culture.


Connors--

Chapter 4

I find it interesting that the most striking change according to Connors is the status change of Rhetoric in American colleges from 1840-1910. Rhetoric went from being taught by highly educated professors and sought out by students and the class in the 1800s to a subject looked down by students and taught by tutors and grad students with no advanced knowledge of the topic.

American students began traveling to Germany to study abroad and receive a graduate degree because the German system was based on graduate education and research degrees. This eventually led to the American University, which was based on the German system. Graduate studies simply available in America and between 1850 and 1910 we really began to see the growth of the graduate student.

Rhetoric just fit in this university movement simply because the new PhD, German educated professors taught in a culture that offered a PhD in rhetoric. Therefore, no Rhetoric based teaching was really brought back to the American University. According to Connors, this demand for PhDs ( and no PhD for Rhetoric) is what spelled the end for Rhetoric as a (181).

Chapter 5

I feel that this chapter brought up a lot of what was said in chapter 4 and previous chapters we have read. He touches on some of the methods but I don't feel this chapter was as organized as the previous reading and it was a little difficult keeping up with some of the points he was trying to make and the order in which different things occured.
=======
Added line 252:
>>>>>>>
Changed line 218 from:
I thought it was interesting to read about the development of graduate programs in America. It only seems logical to me that university structures and hierarchies will change as the demographic of college students changes. It seems like change is a really hot topic in Composition and Rhetoric. For example, "why is it changing?" or "why has rhetoric lost popularity?" Is rhet/ comp mostly just a study of the history of itself? Perhaps rhetoric drags its feet to change with everything else. I blame rhetoric itself for its own decline in popularity.
to:
I thought it was interesting to read about the development of graduate programs in America. It only seems logical to me that university structures and hierarchies will change as the demographic of college students changes. It seems like change is a really hot topic in Composition and Rhetoric. For example, "why is it changing?" or "why has rhetoric lost popularity?" Is rhet/ comp mostly just a study of the history of itself? I was also, in my mind, relating this something my students were learning in history. When trans-atlantic travel became safer and cheaper, young Americans began to travel to Europe and became exposed to scholars and intellectual ideas for reform and positive social change. According to their history book, this is why the expose article became so popular in the United States. The thought of Americans going to Germany and being exposed to graduate studies is a similar story. I think the relationship between History and English is interesting. So even though I get a little tired of reading about the history of rhetoric, it relates to the history of college and higher education in a really big way.
Changed lines 110-115 from:
to:
Cultural Studies and Composition:

This is an attempt at understanding the purpose of the chapter--
There didn't seem to be any real concrete definition to all that cultural studies involves--mainly because it is one that is, in a sense, immersed in debate/struggle. "...Cultural Studies...is experiencing the unavoidable anxieties of professional work and the contradictions inherent in the production of scholarly commodities--the clash, namely, between their exhange value...and their use value.... Our belief is that the future of cultural studies in composition depends on how we keep that contradiciton in sight" (87). I think the authors leave the essay on a hopeful note here...understanding that the need for identity (composition studies) depends on the need and the VALUE of the discipline out in the real world...? Though, I do think much of this chapter focused on the way in which our culture has shaped composition studies--I think there is a lot to be said for the way composition can "shape" a culture. There are those same struggles ("clashes" as it was mentioned somewhere...). I think this is what George and Timbur were getting at when they talked about the leftist and far right ideological thought processes; arguments that compositon studies attempts to push its students toward leftist ideologies were mentioned, but I don't think this is the purpose--compositon studies seeks more to help the writer struggle with those "binaries" within himself--so, in a sense, what I got from the chapter is that Compostion Studies deals with "binaries" within the writer/student, but those outside--those 'cultural' issues as well...? I don't know that this was their purpose for writing, but this is what I was thinking...

-----
Changed lines 213-214 from:
Chapter 4- I thought it was interesting to read about the development of graduate programs in America. It only seems logical to me that university structures and hierarchies will change as the demographic of college students changes. It seems like change is a really hot topic in Composition and Rhetoric. For example, "why is it changing?" or "why has rhetoric lost popularity?" Is rhet/ comp mostly just a study of the history of itself? Perhaps rhetoric drags its feet to change with everything else. I blame rhetoric itself for its own decline in popularity.
to:
I thought it was interesting to read about the development of graduate programs in America. It only seems logical to me that university structures and hierarchies will change as the demographic of college students changes. It seems like change is a really hot topic in Composition and Rhetoric. For example, "why is it changing?" or "why has rhetoric lost popularity?" Is rhet/ comp mostly just a study of the history of itself? Perhaps rhetoric drags its feet to change with everything else. I blame rhetoric itself for its own decline in popularity.
Added lines 212-213:
'''Marilyn'''
Chapter 4- I thought it was interesting to read about the development of graduate programs in America. It only seems logical to me that university structures and hierarchies will change as the demographic of college students changes. It seems like change is a really hot topic in Composition and Rhetoric. For example, "why is it changing?" or "why has rhetoric lost popularity?" Is rhet/ comp mostly just a study of the history of itself? Perhaps rhetoric drags its feet to change with everything else. I blame rhetoric itself for its own decline in popularity.
Changed lines 1-2 from:
[++'''Connors & Tate After Reading'''++]
to:
%red%[++'''Connors & Tate After Reading'''++]
Changed lines 1-3 from:
%red%[+++'''After Reading Tate- Keep Scrolling Down'''+++]
to:
[++'''Connors & Tate After Reading'''++]
Added lines 1-3:
%red%[+++'''After Reading Tate- Keep Scrolling Down'''+++]
Deleted lines 201-202:
>>>>>>>
Added lines 203-212:
!!!Edith After Reading Tate

!!!Collaborative Pedagogy

I find very interesting how terms, such as collaborative pedagogy, have a vague definition. In this reading, Rebecca Moore Howard explains that pedagogy has no necessary link to the teaching of and others interpret it as aid to (54). I think because there are so many issues in the field of teaching that inevitable to look at other factors and elements that contribute to the act of teaching, the pedagogy aspect of it. For instance, a student attending college is expected to write in a certain way, but the education ends there, when in fact Howard states that in order to succeed one must be able to work in a group, collaborate. One of the key practices found in composition is peer responses that students do for one another. Collaborative learning, I think even though others might not agree, confronts many issues in composition classes. For example, students learn from one another, they learn about the writing process, they grow as writers, learn about errors and service learning. I can go on about this, but if there is more positive outcome from collaborative pedagogy, then I would have to say that for it. There will always be someone else or many other who are going to disagree with certain pedagogies, but I think that instead of wasting their time on arguing they should use that energy to help students improve their writing. Although I do think that good to look at any problems that may arise, so that others will learn from them. For example, she writes about some of the issues that may arise from collaborative writing, starting with individual authorship. Instead, Howard illustrates some of the thing we should be doing in writing classes.

!!!Cultural Studies and Composition

Diana George and John article is more relevant to reading for this week. The authors mention the four and how cultural studies have the in composition theory and (71). Going back to the previous reading, Howard, George and Trimbur also note that to define cultural studies is not easy. Although they do find that it is latest import of theory into composition: a moment in the global circulation of intellectual commodities marked by the transmission of British cultural studies from the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) to replace the depleted exchange value of continental high theory in its various disguises (structuralism, deconstruction, and so on) (71). Again, as I mentioned in after reading, this article is like an after reading of , I think the authors also read Connors, but choose other authors as their sources. This reading also reminds me as being one of the chapters in book; it has a lot of history, in regards to the becoming of cultural studies. It shows how connected to composition and how some of the issues arising in composition may arise from the fact that most colleges now have a great diverse group of students and we must keep in mind that everyone has a different background, which plays a significant part in the way they learn or interpret things. For instance, student writing with a topic to the self, close to experiences; teach close reading and interpretation of popular culture or media for literary (82). There are many things to consider when teaching and one of them is to keep in mind the kind of era we are living in because as Connors and these two authors mention, they way students learn can have a lot to do with what is going on at the time; they are probably able to understand better.
Changed lines 154-156 from:
'''Collaborative Pedagogy:'''
to:
'''Collaborative Pedagogy:''' This chapter discusses pretty much what I thought it would, students working collaboratively on an assignment. However, there is much more than just that covered in this chapter. For example, "because composition studies includes pedagogy as a central concern, collaboration holds a particular fascination for the discipline" (54). When I was a freshman, I did not have to take composition (i had dual-credit in high school) and when I heard my seminar students were to be put in writing groups, I was unsure of how this would pan out because I never experienced it. But, after watching how my students work in their groups, I think its a great idea, so I really enjoyed this article. On page 59, quoting Roskelly, Howard mentions, "to employ small-group pedagogy is to decenter the classroom, opening it up to difference and dissent, and teachers must welcome rather than squelch such responses." Furthermore, dividing large classes into smaller groups offers all students the opportunity to talk. These groups can be formulated for discussion, problem solving or accomplishment of certain tasks" (59). This could backfire, of course, as many of my students tend to get off topic, but I do my best to keep them focused. I thought it was interesting that Howard discussed the notion of writer/text collaboration, because I assumed this essay would be mainly about student collaborations. I never thought of this as collaborative pedagogy, simply because its been drilled into my head to cite sources to avoid plagiarism.

'''Cultural Studies & Composition:''' According to George and Trimbur, "cultural studies is the latest import of theory into composition: a moment in the global circulation of intellectual commodities...to replace the depleted exchange value of continental high theory in its various guises (structuralism, poststructuralism, hermeneutics, deconstruction and so on) with the more worldly goods of Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall" (71). At first, I thought cultural studies was something that pertained only to literature, however, after reading this chapter I can see how it fits. I think its imperative today's students are introduced cultural studies in small doses because they should understand that certain texts are biased, but I think focusing too much on it could take away from composition and ''why'' they write. I would assume freshmen would run screaming from an overdose of Derrida.
Added lines 143-156:
-----
'''[+%bgcolor=hotpink%Andrea Montalvo:After Reading Connors+]'''

'''Chapter 4:''' It's ironic to think that there were so little professors of rhetoric (maybe one per campus) in the nineteenth century, yet there are numerous scholars in the field today at every college or university. To have one would simply be inadequate. Connors mentions that within a century the status of the teacher of rhetoric changed, "instead of being an honored and respected intellectual figure in community and on campus, the rhetoric teacher of 1900 is increasingly marginalized, overworked and ill-paid" (171). The rhetoric teacher was initially sought after, however, "rhetoric courses by the early twentieth century are despised and sneered at..." (171). Connors also mentions that the German model was more popular (and of course, older) than the American model in the nineteenth century. "As it evolved from the mid-eighteenth through the nineteenth, the German university was the most advanced academic institution of it kind, and by 1800 Germany was attracting students from all over the world" (175). A large number of American men attended these colleges because American colleges lacked the "tradition of organized research and serious graduate study" (176). I thought this was very interesting because the men that attended these universities would return to the US praising the model, which is how this model was adopted in the first place. In my opinion, I like the idea that the German model "migrated" over here to strengthen our higher education system. It's a very American :). I also thought it was interesting to see when the first American Ph.D. was received (1861, Yale) and that 382 received in 1900. Which made me wonder...how many Ph.D's are earned each year as of now? Hmm...something to look up. Moving on, Connors mentions that "the early freshman course was considered remedial and was bitterly resented by college faculty members..." (185). How awful, to think even the teachers hated the course, I can't imagine how students would've reacted. On page 195, Connors notes, "Graduate students had been increasing in numbers since the 1860s, and allowing them ti teach lower-division courses was a natural movement." So that's where it all started! I like this idea because it not only gives faculty a break, it also helps students practice and prepare for the ultimate goal of becoming a professor.

'''Chapter 5:''' This chapter examines the modes and methods of discourse and how they evolved. Connors notes that "the relatively modern forms of modal rhetoric, however, have their roots in the late Renaissance, when the unitary persuasive nature of neoclassical rhetoric was giving way to new ideas about different discourse aims" (211). He proceeds to discuss the philosophy of Cicero, the Georgian era and Campbell, and provides excerpts from Campbell's ''Lectures on Systematic Theology and Eloquence.'' In the section "Early Multimodal Pedagogies in America," Connors mentions, "In the early nineteenth century...events occurred that would lead to the divorce of rhetoric from composition, oral discourse theory from writing theory, theory itself from practical application and, ultimately, multimodal rhetoric from purely persuasive rhetoric" (217). I think it's interesting how these disciplines used to all be lumped together, however, they are now separate (somewhat) today. I'm not sure if I read the chapter too fast, but I kept getting the names of all the authors mentioned in this chapter. I'm still having some trouble understanding this chapter, hopefully everything will be cleared up on class.

(there isn't an after Tate link, so I'll just post here...)

'''[+%bgcolor=limegreen%Andrea Montalvo After Reading Tate+]'''

'''Collaborative Pedagogy:'''
Deleted line 157:
----
Changed lines 197-198 from:
to:
>>>>>>>
Added lines 172-184:

After Reading Tate

''Collaborative pedagogy''

This was an interesting take. I had never considered group work, or group writing projects a type of pedagogy. I found how the author brought up asking group questions, instead of focused ones, a form of collaborative pedagogy, interesting. I have used group work in the classroom before, the students are responsive (most of the time) and more apt to speak up, but I never considered myself employing a type of pedagogy. I understand that there is more to it, than simply group work, and the author brings up peer reviews and critiques, as well as empowering the students. She also notes influence on her work on Collaborative pedagogy. My take is it is fantastic. The outline she lists for getting students involved and making the writing process effective was helpful. I think, like Hall, she broke something that I had considered common place, down into something that seems much larger when looked at from this perspective.

''Cultural studies and composition''

This chapter disappointed me. I have done study in this area, and one of the things that struck me was how often they made reference to politics, Marxism, feminism, pop-culture, and left wing thinking. I never gave these much thought when looking at cultural studies. That may sound odd, especially since critical approaches to cultural studies allow one to look at things from one of the more critical perspectives, however, I prefer the ethnographic viewpoint. The idea of viewing the culture on their terms, and reporting what they did as it relates to who that culture is.
I think if this was the primary position take then some of the people speaking out against the cultural studies inclusion might not have as much to base their complaints on. The author did bring up ethnographic influence and how it has played it part, especially of late, in journal articles on writing and teaching of writing. Sponsors of literacy is one of my favorite pieces, that the author brought up, and I do like how ethnography is the basis for the article. As for Stuart Hall, I have read quite a bit of his work, in text book form, but I feel like I need to get my hands on some of his other work, because this piece made me feel like I barely knew him.
I advocate the inclusion of cultural studies, but probably from a more ethnographic and anthropological standpoint. I think the author does a good job in noting that pop-cultural pieces can be useful tools when taking that approach, and it does leave the cannon in an awkward place, but my confusion or frustration is with the arguments against the approach. It seems to that this should be the most open and middle road approach out there, because it looks at culture as it is. I guess I feel if it has a political slant or connotation, that is brought in from something other than the culture itself, then it ceases to become a cultural study and then is a personal take/judgment on someone culture. Is it possible to be that objective when studying something cultural or a culture? That is more the question in my mind, but I have never considered this a liberal or leftist form of ODD
Added lines 157-172:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

'''Jennifer G'''

Post Writing Connors

Chapter 4

Yeah. We covered new ground. This chapter was quire enlightening and allowed for some insight into what the discipline has gone through. We have talked about the division from rhetoric, and the move towards texts and less educated instructors, and I believe we have briefly looked at how many students the instructors had to deal with, but this chapter did a fantastic job of breaking things down, and only slightly rehashing the other chapters.
The discussion of moving towards a more Germanic form of research based education was news to me. I was fascinated by the process, and how that was what caused the downfall of the idealization of the discipline. I find it interesting that the writing study brought a writing class to the forefront, which we have discussed, but I had given little consideration to the class standings nor the professors standings, within the university. I was astonished at the portions which broke down the number of papers possible to grade in a decent amount of time, and then the number they were required to grade.
We have discussed the University Hierarchy in other classes, and it gets presented either like a new idea, or one that has never changes. It was nice to see the evolution and recognize where some of the changes are. I never understood why Dr. Cardenas made such a big deal about being a teacher of Rhetoric and Composition, trained in Rhetoric and Composition. I now understand that it is because the addition of a pedagogy and track specifically in Rhetoric and Composition means there is a trend leaning towards the reestablishment of position for the study of Rhetoric and Composition. I think is fantastic and powerful. My shock came in that, while I understand how Rhet comp gained its lack of standing in the new university system, how could individuals be so blind to its importance.

Chapter 5

This chapter falls back a bit into chapter form of rehashing some of the older material. He covered some of this in his chapter on Text books. It is a bit frustrating, especially trying to pull the old from the new. If I had to put into context and briefly summarize what I got from the text, it would be a glance at the way that rhet comp pedagogy and taxonomy has evolved. I could do an in-depth summary, but that would involved swimming through a sea of names and texts to list the various changes that authors made as they borrowed and propelled the study of composition either forward or back. Since I have little practical application for some of this information I found myself re-reading portions to try and find some way to make it applicable. I got from this one, a rather lengthy description of the Comp Rhet pedagogy from inception to models, the use of themes, how paragraphs became structured, and the use of structure in writing as we know it. Connors talks about how some of the more mechanical models did little to teach writing, and it until recently that many of these have begun to change. He discusses the hierarchy pedagogy of levels, and its draw, due to simplicity in execution, but not effectiveness. He also brings up the idea that some of these forms were used for so long because there was money to be made in using them. I think it is important to note, that while I got why something was effective or ineffective, I had trouble keeping the timeline in order in my mind, as the author would jump back and forth in his explanations. This made it hard to understand what went wrong then. I guess I think in to linear a fashion. I think this chapter had some good information, but at this point I am not sure of the full weight of what I have read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Changed lines 143-156 from:
to:
----
----
!!!Edith After Reading Connors

Chapter 4 Licensure, Disciplinary Identity, and Workload in C-R

The text begins to break down immediately, for me, in chronological order. First in the 1800s, the professor of rhetoric was regarded highly, but then a century later, no one cares for them. In relation to the role a teacher plays, I help but think about the people who regard them as high or as no one. those around them who make them and then break them like other scholars or people in the universities. Then informs us that students hate rhetoric, no surprise there. I think even today many students feel the same way about English as the subject matter, period. I imagine all colleges being the same, I mean, the three essential professions, doctors, lawyers, and ministers; I think that would make the world a much more imperfect world. interesting that the German University Model has to be one of the most pertinent elements that universities now offer. Now when I think of , I think about where it originated from. As the text continues to break down, it makes sense as to why certain practices were performed. The research based philosophy has made, I believe, universities much bigger and even today many are recognized for a particular study. For instance, Arizona State University is well known for the Latino and Chicano Study and the list goes on. In regards to PhD study, not sure how things would work now if every university would have to send PhD candidates to Germany to study. There is too much to cover in this chapter, but I do have say that the subject of rhetoric has had its share of struggles.
On a different note, the first basic freshmen course offered at Harvard clearly pin points many of the issues that we face today. One example is how some professors may seem like they are too good to teach writing. In 1896, course was considered remedial and was bitterly resented by college faculty (Connors 185). I name anyone, but I know those type of professors exists and my problem is that they are in the field of teaching, so why they teaching? And needless to say after Harvard began offering this course other colleges also followed their lead.
One of the connections that I found with previous readings is the connection between a teacher and a student. primary transaction in any serious composition course came to be seen as being between the student and the (Connors 188). The quote is part of some of the discussions my classmates have in our Basic Writing Theory class, we question the time a student may need to succeed in college and basically the role a teacher plays in lives. Finally, I believe that a teacher can only do so much for a student; he/she should do their part in teaching themselves some things and not depend on them totally. Also, the way that instructors were overworked is ridiculous, some people really think about how the outcome will be, not only for teachers, but also for a education.

Chapter 5 Discourse Taxonomies in Composition-Rhetoric
I think the separation between composition and rhetoric is very significant because it had a lot to do with the cultural needs of nineteenth century America (217). In the reading, Studies and by Diana George and John Trimbur, cultural studies (s) value of continental high theory in its various guises (structuralism, post- structuralism, hermeneutics, deconstruction, and so on) (71). I think important to note that names such as Hugh Blair, George Campbell and Richard Whately because they played a significant role in the way Composition and Rhetoric is now seen. Another important name is Alexander Bain because he the first theorist to put forward the powerful version of the Description, Narration, Exposition and (Connors 222). I think modes can basically cover some of the issues in composition such as literacy, voice, process, and the goals of writing. Although this reading does not go into detail about all the issues occurring in the universities at the time, Connors does give an insight on who was taking action on some of the unnoticed theories such as rhetoric and composition and the way students were writing.
Changed lines 114-143 from:
This chapter was particularly difficult to absorb. I appreciate the discussion regarding modes and the theorists who contributed to this discourse. For decades theorists and their followers (teachers and professors) used modes as a tool for composition. Alexander modes of discourse--description, narration, exposition and argument were used heavily; however, after years of assessment, modes of discourse are no longer considered a tool for composition. A writer cannot compose within one mode; instead, a writer uses numerous modes for composition. Connors explains, passing of modes was accelerated by the rise of a new sort of composition text book. (250) Connors refers to composition text books as thesis text because it they are controlled by one central idea.
to:
This chapter was particularly difficult to absorb. I appreciate the discussion regarding modes and the theorists who contributed to this discourse. For decades theorists and their followers (teachers and professors) used modes as a tool for composition. Alexander modes of discourse--description, narration, exposition and argument were used heavily; however, after years of assessment, modes of discourse are no longer considered a tool for composition. A writer cannot compose within one mode; instead, a writer uses numerous modes for composition. Connors explains, passing of modes was accelerated by the rise of a new sort of composition text book. (250) Connors refers to composition text books as thesis text because it they are controlled by one central idea.
----
'''Darcy L.--Post-Read'''

'''Collaborative Pedagogy:'''
Collaborative pedagogy appears to be more focused on the audience (or at least the relationship between the writer and the audience) than process or expressivist pedagogies, which were focused on placing the writer at the center. The way Howard represents it, it contrasts against the cultural tradition that privileges the individual agent and especially the solitary (55), which was an idea popular in Romanticism. It reminded me of some of the reading we did in Lit Crit last semester during the Structuralist week (about how language can be given meaning with the context of being socially constructed), as well as the Reader Response week (in which the audience creates the meaning of the text).

As far as the classroom experience goes, Howard gives the concrete examples of small group discussion, peer response to writing (in groups), and the collaborative writing assignment. The latter is the most controversial of all the exercises because it presents the most problems to overcome in a classroom. Whenever you put differing personalities into a group and give them a single grade for the final project, it can be less than fair for a plethora of reasons. Students who care about their grades have to assert themselves more strongly than those who are content with median-level work. If and when I teach comp, I think the last thing I want to do is mediate conflict between bratty group members. Maybe this sort of thing works out well at the graduate level, but I am not sure I trust 18-year-olds to successfully respect and equally contribute to a group. That being said, I think there is a lot of value to the idea of grouping people into these families (like in the Puente Project reading from Basic Writing) in which they are accountable to one another. I also thought it was a great idea to have collaborative response to individually drafter papers. Having students come up with questions teaches them how to be active listeners (which is the first step to critical thinking, I would say) and it can bring great benefits to the writer, who gets the advantage that few writers how an audience receives the writing. Plus, this can be a great baby step for shy or self-conscious writers who can get some positive feedback from their peers before turning something in for a grade. As for the plagiarism allegation, I think that applies to any of suggestions except for the writer/text collaboration. I may just not understand what the finished product of this method is, but that one seems a bit sketchy to me.

'''Cultural Studies and Composition:'''
This article was really hard for me to come to any concrete conclusions about. There were so many abstractions layered on top of abstractions that it was not coming together for me. It obviously made sense within the context of the new emphasis on , the politics of literacy, and the implications of race, class, and gender for the study and teaching of that emerged out of (or in tandem with) the postcolonial turn in literary theory (72). George and Trimbur talk about the implications for teachers in terms of the debates in the journals about the ethics of politically engaged and a call for rhetoric, public writing, and community service (72). This means a reexamination of the hierarchical structure of the classroom, from teacher-student relationships to the relationships between students and between students and the texts.

If I were to try and sum up what this means for the classroom, I would say (and be guessing) that George and Trimbur are saying the goal of composition class is to produce civic-minded individuals and cultural critics who are able to recognize and articulate inequalities in power structures. This would include expanding the canon and the conception of what constitutes literature. They are explicit about what this means in terms of and that is a more deliberate use of popular culture and media studies into the composition (81). This means personalizing student writing and envoking the close reading of popular culture. I think that there can definitely be room for utilizing popular culture and other media besides literature in a classroom, but I also think that this can be a crutch that is used to hold interest and for the teacher to try and seem the and ingratiate himself to the students. To be honest, in some cases, it just seems like pandering to an audience that the teacher has really low expectations and hopes know, the old kids today just get kind of rhetoric. Last night in BW, James made a really great point about trying to expose students to new literature that they already inculcated with and conditioned to on a daily basis. If we are trying to produce critical thinkers, we should be asking them to think about new things. Bringing in lyrics to a rap song heard a million times is great within the context of thinking about it critically and helping them examine the ties between pop culture and capitalism, consumerism, etc., but most of the time, the pop culture techniques are just and pointless.

''', Disciplinary Identity, and Workload in Composition-'''

pretty bleak when Connors talks about the discipline of Comp/Rhet and the teaching of the composition course. He talks about the change from rhetoric to composition and how that paralleled with the decline of esteem given to both the profession and to those who teach it. In his words, changed in one hundred years [1800-1900] from an academic desideratum to a grim (172). Along with this devaluation of rhetoric came an increase in workload as written themes became the product of the classroom and comp teachers found themselves swamped by workload. Connors affectionately nicknames this new system as the due to the increasing number of students and the sheer number of papers to grade for the composition teacher (188). And on top of it all, comp teachers get paid so much less.

Connors also talks about the German University model, which I found pretty interesting. Before adopting the German model, American universities reflected the democratic tradition, as there was no class structure or marginalized or underclass (173). Before the Civil War, there really any graduate degrees other than honorific degrees. Between 1860 and 1900, the German influence was brought over, resulting in more hierarchy, the graduate/undergraduate system, research focus in graduate study, a more complex system of administration, and the attachment of importance to publishing work. Also, the focus on empiricism reduced rhetoric down the chain as the scientist were skeptical of its merits. Connors identifies the death knell for rhetoric being the demand for doctorates since no PhDs in rhetoric existed.

no wonder that the - system went into Connors calls the of Freshman (199). The longer one paid his dues in school and the higher the degree earned, the less likely it is that someone has to stay in the salt mines of grading comp papers for too let the TAs take care of it. I think this system is very much so still in place today, even with the growing composition studies field. PhDs in comp studies involve themselves in teaching graduate classes and research/publication. It is rare to see many PhDs teaching freshman composition even in universities that have composition studies departments.

''' Taxonomies in Composition '''

Really, there is so much covered in this chapter that it was hard to keep everything straight. I noticed how Connors represented the different taxonomies as this evolutionary process, from multimodality, which led to the modes of discourse, leading into a focus on exposition, then into the approach and its atomistic perspective. It was interesting how Connors cites this evolution for the split down the middle between composition and rhetoric: this century, the final break took place between (or argument) and (or exposition) as the politics of university departmentalization drove apart the two related (234). This is how the modern organization of English departments taking over exposition (and narrative writing, I would say) and argumentation becoming the sole intellectual property of Communication departments.

Another interesting element was the Deweyite for Life movement. Although Connors circles back to this several times, it get in-depth treatment here, and if my own educational experience is any indication, I would say this movement had a really significant impact on education, and specifically composition instruction. One of the most fundamental unanswered/debated questions is what is the purpose of teaching composition. The Deweyite movement seems to have refocused what the objectives were and placed the importance on the and pragmatism, which translated to exposition for comp classrooms that was further appropriated by specialized courses like journalism and tech writing. We can see composition getting whittled down and eroded from outside forces. Another important factor that reared its head again was the ability for teachers to easily absorb and disseminate the composition curriculum. The modes did just that, and found a neatly packaged and easily taught pedagogical tool of a sort that no other mode in exposition, and later in the pedagogy of levels which broke writing into (238, 250).

Also, though Connors claims the modes became (sorry, that was bad), he also admits that they are still a presence today in comp classrooms. interesting to see how the modes allegedly split off (narration and description going to creative writing, argumentation going to speech, and exposition remaining with comp) but it does seem that composition classes today are trying to incorporate more of the old modes, at least in terms of covering them as types of writing. They may not call them by those names, but you see a lot more personal writing and even a focus on critical thinking that could be construed as a return to argumentation. amazing how cyclical it all is.
Changed lines 106-114 from:
I've always kind of loathed group discussion/wrk because I'm not much of a speaker..ha I always seemed to enjoy lecture based classes more than discussion based. Yet, I've always loved to listen to discussion--I can learn from others' perspectives of the text, and it helps me to grasp things more clearly. I've always kind of been a "slow thinker" i guess--things/thoughts have to settle and stew before I can clearly express them, so I hardly speak up. After reading the chapter though--I have a better understanding of the purpose of group/collaborative based teaching/writing. While reading, I started to look back on a lot of the collaborative projects from previous semesters, and I could see their effectiveness in teaching. I like the idea of the decentered classroom actually, and that of the teacher engaging the class in discussions with "open-ended" type questions--the intructor engaging in discussion and taking in things as well. Howard mentions this to be somewhat the case for writing centers as well--serving as a separate, private 'guide' to learning. I think this strategy puts the responsibility of learning into the students hands...it encourages independence as well as collaboration. "Two heads are better than one." Lots of heads are "way" better than one...ha...because each individual has his/her own way/means of interpreting data.
to:
I've always kind of loathed group discussion/wrk because I'm not much of a speaker..ha I always seemed to enjoy lecture based classes more than discussion based. Yet, I've always loved to listen to discussion--I can learn from others' perspectives of the text, and it helps me to grasp things more clearly. I've always kind of been a "slow thinker" i guess--things/thoughts have to settle and stew before I can clearly express them, so I hardly speak up. After reading the chapter though--I have a better understanding of the purpose of group/collaborative based teaching/writing. While reading, I started to look back on a lot of the collaborative projects from previous semesters, and I could see their effectiveness in teaching. I like the idea of the decentered classroom actually, and that of the teacher engaging the class in discussions with "open-ended" type questions--the intructor engaging in discussion and taking in things as well. Howard mentions this to be somewhat the case for writing centers as well--serving as a separate, private 'guide' to learning. I think this strategy puts the responsibility of learning into the students hands...it encourages independence as well as collaboration. "Two heads are better than one." Lots of heads are "way" better than one...ha...because each individual has his/her own way/means of interpreting data.


######

Michele Mora-Trevino
Connors explains the evolution of composition-rhetoric and discusses the factors that created modern composition-rhetoric. Some of those factors included the desire of Americans to mirror the German university model, the skills level of teachers, the demand for doctorates, gender issues, the introduction of freshman composition and the workload demands of composition professors all contributed to the decline and rise of rhetoric. The rise of rhetoric has been slow; however, with the English formation of The Conference on College Composition and Communications (CCCC) and other similar forums, the discussions of rhetoric theory are active and are being integrated into all areas of English studies as well as communication studies. CCCC laid the foundation for composition studies as a discipline. The CCCC has provided rhetoric with a voice and has legitimized rhetoric as a scholarly specialty (209).

This chapter was particularly difficult to absorb. I appreciate the discussion regarding modes and the theorists who contributed to this discourse. For decades theorists and their followers (teachers and professors) used modes as a tool for composition. Alexander modes of discourse--description, narration, exposition and argument were used heavily; however, after years of assessment, modes of discourse are no longer considered a tool for composition. A writer cannot compose within one mode; instead, a writer uses numerous modes for composition. Connors explains, passing of modes was accelerated by the rise of a new sort of composition text book. (250) Connors refers to composition text books as thesis text because it they are controlled by one central idea
.
Added lines 101-106:
----

!!!!Michelle G

Collaborative Pedagogy:
I've always kind of loathed group discussion/wrk because I'm not much of a speaker..ha I always seemed to enjoy lecture based classes more than discussion based. Yet, I've always loved to listen to discussion--I can learn from others' perspectives of the text, and it helps me to grasp things more clearly. I've always kind of been a "slow thinker" i guess--things/thoughts have to settle and stew before I can clearly express them, so I hardly speak up. After reading the chapter though--I have a better understanding of the purpose of group/collaborative based teaching/writing. While reading, I started to look back on a lot of the collaborative projects from previous semesters, and I could see their effectiveness in teaching. I like the idea of the decentered classroom actually, and that of the teacher engaging the class in discussions with "open-ended" type questions--the intructor engaging in discussion and taking in things as well. Howard mentions this to be somewhat the case for writing centers as well--serving as a separate, private 'guide' to learning. I think this strategy puts the responsibility of learning into the students hands...it encourages independence as well as collaboration. "Two heads are better than one." Lots of heads are "way" better than one...ha...because each individual has his/her own way/means of interpreting data.
Changed line 1 from:
Kathy H
to:
"Kathy H"
Changed line 42 from:
Kathy H Feb 15
to:
"Kathy H" Feb 16
Added lines 41-52:
-----
Kathy H Feb 15
After Reading Tate 3:
Collaborative Pedagogy and Cultural Studies

This article explained the pedagogic perspective behind collaborative writing. My personal experience in collaborative writing was in professional and technical writing assignments. Real-world writing experience is an invaluable skill for all the reasons talked about in the section on Writing. This author did a very good job at describing, from a point of view, the challenges and benefits of assigning collaborative writing assignments. Personally I prefer to write most of my projects without a collaborative approach, but there have been several times when the method is essential in accomplishing a task, and fortunately, my teams worked well together and the end results were successful projects. I see the wisdom in using this approach so that students knowledge by discussing topics, and in turn benefit from each perspectives and learn new skills by observing each writing styles. I can see how this collaborative approach is useful in a class such as this in that so much is being discussed, much of it uncharted territory, and all of us are discerning the information and each other through our individual insights. We all bring something unique to the discussions and when we collaboratively/collectively write our the field, it reflects an in-depth discussion that took place within our group that was interesting and invigorating. It works well in this classroom format.

Kathy H: Tate: Cultural Studies Chapter

After reading this chapter, I still do not have a grasp of any concrete definition of Cultural Studies, but the one statement in the article that makes a bit of sense is, matters of classroom practice, cultural studies is no doubt most clearly associated with bringing a more deliberate use of popular culture and media studies into the composition course." (81) It seems that there is a push to make cultural studies "fit" into a composition classroom, but it seems more of a politically correct issue than a scholarly one. The Marxist principles are radical, and yes, current cultural issues are important to address, but it seems it might be better to address those issues in a political science or sociological classroom setting, or in elective studies rather than compulsory courses. Are composition teachers supposed to "nurture" radicalism? Are discussions on what divides people more important than learning to write well? Communication is important, but the emphasis on "ideological congestion" (86)in a composition classroom seems nonsensical. Maybe I'm out of touch with reality; I'll leave it with that. This article confirmed that I do not a proepnsity to learn about or teach this approach in the future.
Added lines 77-88:
----
'''John L. After Connors'''

In Chapter 4, , Disciplinary Identity, and Workload in Composition-Rhetoric, Connors main point of discussion is that the status of composition/rhetoric teachers hit its nadir in the late 19th/early 20th century, before becoming pertinent again in the mid-20th century. The primary reason behind the change in status was the implementation of the Germanic method of higher education. Whereas previously, the more egalitarian/Jeffersonian setup of universities prevented the strict hierarchies known today, the Germanic method set up strict levels of importance within faculties and administrators. It was this Germanic influence that caused massive numbers of graduate programs to emerge. And rhetoric was not among them in the late 19th century as other disciplines were being awarded Ph.D.s, rhetoric was not.

As a result, composition came to be despised. Rhetoric was split between speech/communication and English. And in the early 20th century, rhetoric was stripped of its verbal characteristics and was transformed into the writing based composition studies. Composition was derided as remedial, and composition professors hated the stigma of being remedial professors.

The Hopkins report in 1923 was the first turning point, and then the fulcrum was the CCCC meeting in Los Angeles in 1963, which brought renewed attention to rhetorical principles. The report discussed the terrible conditions for composition professors, including the overwork associated with 200 person classrooms. Although these are a thing of the past, composition is still seen as the red-headed stepchild by many.

Chapter 5 is titled: Taxonomies in Composition-Rhetoric. Its primary focus is one the evolution of primary modes of composition/rhetoric. This chapter first discusses the early taxonomies. Next, Connors discusses the early multimodal pedagogies in America. The next section of the chapter was in regards to the reign of the modes. In textbooks in the 19th and early 20th centuries, four-mode textbooks were the norm. Connors then discusses the rise of exposition in regards to composition. By this, Connors meant that exposition was a field that was rapidly growing within the field of composition, especially beginning at the beginning of the 20th century.

The article then delves into textbook taxonomies. Connors suggests that textbooks divided composition in levels that need to be learned in order. One level needed to be passed before discussion of the next. Connors argues that this is an artificial method of learning composition, and he praises composition teachers who are tearing down these artificial barriers. Finally, Connor discusses thesis texts. Specifically, he discusses how the taxonomy of levels is still found in textbooks, but not the modes of discourse. This, Connors claims, helps students as they contain useful reality, as opposed to the modes.
Changed lines 72-73 from:
'''Holly C. Tate'''
to:
'''Holly C. - Tate'''
Added lines 71-76:
----
'''Holly C. Tate'''

I found it ironic that the chapter on collaborative pedagogy was not written in a collaborative effort, but just a side-note. This chapter was full of a lot of information on how collaborative pedagogy works and what the rationale is behind it. It was very interesting Howard makes the assertion that the mere act of considering the audience was a form of collaboration. I had never considered that. When Howard says, teachers are no longer dispensing knowledge in lectures but are guiding students in the collaborative (57), she is suggesting the notion of the teacher as the facilitator and not just the leader of the classroom. This type of teaching seems in line with the Freireian philosophy of teaching, which advocates a non-transactional method of information transfer. Of interesting note, this is also the method of teaching being most encouraged in the education system right now. As Howard says, the collaborative pedagogy assists with tasks that fall on the higher level of critical thinking on taxonomy. Howard does not mention Freire in her article, but does mention Peter Elbow and his article without . I do agree with what Howard said at the end of the article, which was that [...] the pedagogy of writer/text collaboration has the potential for expanding linguistic repertroires and increasing the authority of their academic prose (67). I also agree that the subject of collaborative research is an area that is for further (67).

The article on cultural studies was actually collaborative. Since the last article was on pedagogy, I expected this article to be more on discussing how to integrate cultural studies into the field of rhetoric and composition. Instead, the article was more about why cultural studies have been integrated into the field of rhetoric and composition. There seems to be a large amount of responsibility for this integration placed on the British. I am not sure of what George and Trimbur meant when they said that British cultural studies tends to occupy a middle ground. Does that mean that British cultural studies maintain a middle ground in all things, or just in the field of rhetoric and composition? Though George and Trimbur make no mention of this in their article, I do see that the integration of more individuals into the college classroom was the reason for the eventual integration of cultural studies into rhetoric and composition, and this ties back in to the information we have learned in Connors. The prospects that were most interesting in the chapter was the discussion of using popular culture to teach rhetoric and composition and the debate over whether or not popular culture is suitable for teaching rhetoric and composition. There is always a discussion of whether or not information being used to disseminate a lesson to students is valuable. As I read this article, I thought a lot about an Eco article I read during last Literary Criticism class. The article discussed the myth of Superman and also the affect that episodic and formulaic literatures such as comic books and romance novels have on the people who read them. In a very Marxist way, these things were kind of classified as opiates for the masses. Taking this thought to cultural studies and the teaching of Rhetoric and Composition, I can understand why there is concern over whether or not using popular culture as a teaching tool. While these things might have literary merit, is there a chance of that merit being missed if it was used as a teaching tool? Will the students be basically too entertained to pick up the intent of the lesson? There seems to be several diasporas in cultural studies, and this article was an interesting discussion of these things.
Changed lines 50-51 from:
John L. After Tate
to:
'''John L. After Tate'''
Changed lines 47-48 from:
to:
----
There's no After Tate link, so I'll put mine here:

John L. After Tate

You have asked us to read by Rebecca Moore Howard (pp. 54-70) and Studies and by Diana George and John Trimbur (pp. 71-91).

Rebecca Moore article is both the same and different than what I expected. She sets forth three principles of collaborative pedagogy:

1. [B]ecause thought is internalized conversation, thought and conversation then to work in largely the same way.
2. If thought is internalized public and social talk, then writing of all kinds is internalized social talk made public and social again. If thought is internalized conversation, then writing is internalized conversation re-externalized.
3. To learn is to work collaboratively to establish and maintain knowledge among a community of knowledgeable peers through the process Richard Rorty calls justifying belief.

Howard posits that all writing is collaborative, and that the idea of the solitary author is more myth than fact.

She suggests that collaborative pedagogy exists in peer groups, peer revisions, group writing, and other group activities. She states that a role is to facilitate, not to inform. Howard continues by offering nine suggestions for assigning collaborative writing.

This theory of collaborative writing has merit, in some circumstances. I think that writing that is able to be apportioned among individuals, is quantitative, or that is because of peer review is perfect for collaboration. But Howard wrote this article as an individual not as collaboration. hard to believe she does not see the benefits to being the only author responsible for a paper/

Ironically, the next article Studies and by Diana George and John Trimbur (pp. 71-91) is collaborative. In this article, the authors state that cultural studies wormed its way into composition in the early 1990s and it is here to stay. George and Trimbur highlight the massive problem with cultural studies, but they lack the courage to follow that line of thinking to its natural conclusion. The massive problem with cultural studies is that it does not help students write. Instead of focusing on that obvious issue, it is shunted to the end of the article with a shrug and a wink. Instead, most of this article focuses on the Marxist underpinnings of cultural studies, its slow insinuation into compositions studies, and the ways by which students are told to express themselves.

Of course, the authors ignore pertinent issues. All I hear from my classmates is how students write anymore when they get to college. Now, they are not being taught to write in freshman composition classes. When, exactly, does writing actually get taught? A correlation exists between education and wealthy, between ignorance and poverty. By emphasizing trivialities such as the of in writing, teachers close the gulf they widen it.

George and Trimbur note in the end that cultural studies have had an amazingly easy road into composition. Maybe because analysis is easier to grade than actual writing.
Added lines 40-48:

----
'''Holly C.'''

Chapter 4 of Connors discusses the degradation of the field of rhetoric yet again, this time concentrating on how and economical have affected the way in which the subject is taught. Connors states that rhetoric teacher of 1900 is increasingly marginalized, over worked, [...]ill paid[...], [and] is typically an instructor, or a graduate (171). I am uncertain as to whether or not Connors is sympathetic to these underpaid and overworked graduate students, but it seems as if his tone is somewhat scathing of the fact that mere graduate students are teaching composition. Connors also makes the assertion that, before the nineteenth century, colleges did not have any type of internal class system because those enrolled at colleges were already part of a group of a very select few. I found it very interesting that Connors discussed the plight of the researcher/college teacher in the nineteenth century as if the environment he was suggesting it was a part of the past. When he said, [the] researcher was expected [...] to show his worth as a scholar by disseminating his findings through a system of professional (177), I kind of wondered why it sounds like he thinks this the case anymore. It also sounds like the graduate programs of the nineteenth century did little to teach graduate students how to teach classes. Connors also states that it was the influence of the German PhD. system that caused the end of rhetoric as a discipline. Connors attributes this to the lack of Germanic PhDs in rhetoric and then to the simple fact that there were simply no individuals possessing a rhetoric PhD in America. The chapter begins to get a little repetitive as Connors again discusses the now infamous Harvard entrance exam, and how this exam exposed the illiteracy of prospective Harvard students and the fact that Rhetoric and Composition teachers were considered the underbelly of college English departments.

I really had trouble figuring out what exactly the chapter on discourse taxonomies was talking about, though I did get great amusement out of the quip about people in the English profession having a need to place things in some kind of classification system. What I am reading so far suggests that a lot of what the taxonomies that Connors was talking about is about how the different subjects that were being taught in rhetoric were classified in importance. I gathered this conclusion from the portion of the chapter where Connors says, sorts of discourse were determined by which of these faculties--understandings, imagination, passions, or will--was being addressed. I am not certain of what multi-modality means specifically, but I am understanding that there were many different schools of thought on just what a rhetoric class should be teaching, with a difference of opinions existing between teaching narratives, expository, and argumentative discourses and teaching more belleteristic forms of writing. I am understanding belleteristic forms of writing to be more mechanical and technical types of writing. There is also a difference of opinion on whether style or or invention should be taught. The discussion of exposition seemed to have a bit of a hierarchy or order to it, the hierarchy consisting first of definitions, then propositions, then particular cases, and finally illustrations. There is also what appears to be a taxonomy of explanation that begins with narrations and ends with contrast. Another hierarchy that I am seeing is one in which the different parts of writing are being taught. To me, under this hierarchy, the first thing taught would be the sentence, then the paragraph, and so on.
Added line 11:
Notes / Observations of importance from text:
Changed lines 15-16 from:
type of discourse is explanation and aim is communication or instruction
*Hugh Blair literary genres prose and verse prose: historical writing, philosophical writing, epistolary writing, and fictitious writing
to:
type of discourse is explanation and aim is communication or instruction *Hugh Blair literary genres prose and verse prose: historical writing, philosophical writing, epistolary writing, and fictitious writing
Changed lines 5-9 from:
The other interesting thing discussed in this chapter was that there was a perceived Literacy Crisis, and remedial to teach basic writing skills became the norm for first year students. is a lasting tradition it seems.

This phenomenon of the development of an of writing teachers explains why the profession is often considered to be unpopular. I certainly loathed English classes in high school and years ago in Freshman Composition, and it seemed that my teachers hated teaching it. If someone would have told me thirty years ago that I would be an English major and then go on to get certified to teach high school English, I would have laughed. One observation that I can make about the current pedagogy at TAMUCC is that it is not the hated profession that Connors describes in this chapter.

After Connors Chapter 5: Discourse Taxonomies
to:
*The other interesting thing discussed in this chapter was that there was a perceived Literacy Crisis, and remedial to teach basic writing skills became the norm for first year students. is a lasting tradition it seems.

*This phenomenon of the development of an of writing teachers explains why the profession is often considered to be unpopular. I certainly loathed English classes in high school and years ago in Freshman Composition, and it seemed that my teachers hated teaching it. If someone would have told me thirty years ago that I would be an English major and then go on to get certified to teach high school English, I would have laughed. One observation that I can make about the current pedagogy at TAMUCC is that it is not the hated profession that Connors describes in this chapter.

*After Connors Chapter 5: Discourse Taxonomies
Changed lines 16-26 from:
Five most common belletristic forms were letters, treatises, essays, biographies, and fiction- Blairian belletristic classification found in pre Civil-War rhetoric, it did not last; was not essentially pedagogical in nature;
Early Multimodal Pedagogies in America : Modes became master taxonomy no changes until the
Samuel P. Newman of the modal formula
Henry Nobel Day objects of discourse: explanation, conviction, excitation, persuasion
Alexander Bain Description, Narration, Exposition, Persuasion (argument)
His success: offered a conceptualizing strategy for teaching composition
The modes controlled the teaching of composition through the complete control of textbooks until the
Bainian modes were popular for several reasons: culture change; young students were expected to read and write well, topics of importance to Americans, not high
John Genung The Practical Elements of Rhetoric greatly influenced the theoretical and practical world of rhetoric instruction from the1880;s-
Big Four: Barrett Wendall, John Genung, Adams S. Hill, and Fred Newton Scott
Scott/Denney: Contrast, Explanation, Definition, Detail and Proofs terms
to:
most common belletristic forms were letters, treatises, essays, biographies, and fiction- Blairian belletristic classification found in pre Civil-War rhetoric, it did not last; was not essentially pedagogical in nature;
Multimodal Pedagogies in America : Modes became master taxonomy no changes until the
P. Newman of the modal formula
Nobel Day objects of discourse: explanation, conviction, excitation, persuasion
Bain Description, Narration, Exposition, Persuasion (argument)
success: offered a conceptualizing strategy for teaching composition
modes controlled the teaching of composition through the complete control of textbooks until the
modes were popular for several reasons: culture change; young students were expected to read and write well, topics of importance to Americans, not high
Genung The Practical Elements of Rhetoric greatly influenced the theoretical and practical world of rhetoric instruction from the1880;s-
Four: Barrett Wendall, John Genung, Adams S. Hill, and Fred Newton Scott
/Denney: Contrast, Explanation, Definition, Detail and Proofs terms
Changed lines 28-32 from:
AS Hill many texts used his model reflected the general qualities of good writing
Chapters contained elements such as vocabulary, slang, etc (242)
George Rice Carpenter popularized discussion of set up simple, exercise-laden treatment of pedagogical specifics - drill-based pedagogy
Levels: Words, sentences, paragraphs- unity, coherence, and development thought of as a mini composition
Coherent by use of transitional markers, repetition of key words and important groups, parallel structure, and pronoun reference
to:
.S.Hill many texts used his model reflected the general qualities of good writing
contained elements such as vocabulary, slang, etc (242)
Rice Carpenter popularized discussion of set up simple, exercise-laden treatment of pedagogical specifics - drill-based pedagogy
: Words, sentences, paragraphs- unity, coherence, and development thought of as a mini composition
by use of transitional markers, repetition of key words and important groups, parallel structure, and pronoun reference
Changed lines 34-39 from:
1950-1985 most developed textbook forms
Wendell: principles - Unity, Mass, Coherence
1931 Foerster and Steadman Writing and Thinking writing should be organic, not mechanic
Textbooks were influenced by the General Semantics movement and the general education movement (Dewey) language arts/ communications approach reading, writing, listening, speaking rather than writing alone

This chapter was a great overview of how comp-rhet developed and I can see traces of the approaches (terms that are recognizable) in composition and literature classes today. It was a very interesting that Connors, and to some extent I agree, that years it was of no concern that this schema did not actually help students learn to write but it is good that the explanations of how these ideas have impacted comp-rhet classes and how much things have changed in many respects.
to:
-1985 most developed textbook forms
: principles - Unity, Mass, Coherence
Foerster and Steadman Writing and Thinking writing should be organic, not mechanic
were influenced by the General Semantics movement and the general education movement (Dewey) language arts/ communications approach reading, writing, listening, speaking rather than writing alone

This chapter was a great overview of how comp-rhet developed and I can see traces of the approaches (terms that are recognizable) in composition and literature classes today. It was a very interesting that Connors, and to some extent I agree, that years it was of no concern that this schema did not actually help students learn to write but it is good that the explanations of how these ideas have impacted comp-rhet classes and how much things have changed for the better in many respects.
Added lines 1-39:
Kathy H
*After reading Connors/Feb 16 Chapter 4
*This chapter is a historical perspective which addresses the status of the discipline of rhetoric at the college level. Rhetoric was once an esteemed profession where the practitioners were considered to be intellectuals, and chair of rhetoric was a chair of power and honor. But by 1900, the transitions of the discipline led it to being marginalized and the teachers became an in the universities. The thing that surprised me most about this change of status was that it was the result of the adoption of the German-based system - the scholarly ideal - which influenced all areas of study in American institutions. When the students returned, having adopted this new culture, they taught and became administrators which changed the face of the American universities. This trend was great for the expansion of the applied and social sciences, but because there were PhD. in rhetoric, the prestige of the Rhetorician was devalued. The of the Comp-Rhet teacher became well-known, and while other fields flourished, the took a back seat. Another interesting fact was that Fred Newton Scott, an giant in the managed to - an organization at Michigan State which produced students earning and doctoral degrees; Michigan is to this day a very prestigious school for all writing studies; the influence of Scott has been a lasting one.

The other interesting thing discussed in this chapter was that there was a perceived Literacy Crisis, and remedial to teach basic writing skills became the norm for first year students. is a lasting tradition it seems.

This phenomenon of the development of an of writing teachers explains why the profession is often considered to be unpopular. I certainly loathed English classes in high school and years ago in Freshman Composition, and it seemed that my teachers hated teaching it. If someone would have told me thirty years ago that I would be an English major and then go on to get certified to teach high school English, I would have laughed. One observation that I can make about the current pedagogy at TAMUCC is that it is not the hated profession that Connors describes in this chapter.

After Connors Chapter 5: Discourse Taxonomies
chapter discusses the influences that the modes and methods of Consolidation and Modern composition-rhetoric have had on composition classrooms over the last two centuries. -Rhet has been one of the most taxonomic of rhetorical systems addicted to classifications of discourse, figure, style, and other elements of writing.
back to late Renaissance discourse should describe and explain and predict clearly, as opposed to argumentative-based persuasions of rhetoric
Campbell proposed a complete renovation of rhetorical theory, one that broadened the scope of rhetoric to include all discourse, oral and written
Locke: discourse has three purposes: to make known one thoughts or ideas to another; to do it with ease and quickness; to convey knowledge of things
type of discourse is explanation and aim is communication or instruction
*Hugh Blair literary genres prose and verse prose: historical writing, philosophical writing, epistolary writing, and fictitious writing
Five most common belletristic forms were letters, treatises, essays, biographies, and fiction- Blairian belletristic classification found in pre Civil-War rhetoric, it did not last; was not essentially pedagogical in nature;
Early Multimodal Pedagogies in America : Modes became master taxonomy no changes until the
Samuel P. Newman of the modal formula
Henry Nobel Day objects of discourse: explanation, conviction, excitation, persuasion
Alexander Bain Description, Narration, Exposition, Persuasion (argument)
His success: offered a conceptualizing strategy for teaching composition
The modes controlled the teaching of composition through the complete control of textbooks until the
Bainian modes were popular for several reasons: culture change; young students were expected to read and write well, topics of importance to Americans, not high
John Genung The Practical Elements of Rhetoric greatly influenced the theoretical and practical world of rhetoric instruction from the1880;s-
Big Four: Barrett Wendall, John Genung, Adams S. Hill, and Fred Newton Scott
Scott/Denney: Contrast, Explanation, Definition, Detail and Proofs terms
Textbook Taxonomies: The Pedagogies of Levels
AS Hill many texts used his model reflected the general qualities of good writing
Chapters contained elements such as vocabulary, slang, etc (242)
George Rice Carpenter popularized discussion of set up simple, exercise-laden treatment of pedagogical specifics - drill-based pedagogy
Levels: Words, sentences, paragraphs- unity, coherence, and development thought of as a mini composition
Coherent by use of transitional markers, repetition of key words and important groups, parallel structure, and pronoun reference
Nonmodal Textbooks: Thesis Texts
1950-1985 most developed textbook forms
Wendell: principles - Unity, Mass, Coherence
1931 Foerster and Steadman Writing and Thinking writing should be organic, not mechanic
Textbooks were influenced by the General Semantics movement and the general education movement (Dewey) language arts/ communications approach reading, writing, listening, speaking rather than writing alone

This chapter was a great overview of how comp-rhet developed and I can see traces of the approaches (terms that are recognizable) in composition and literature classes today. It was a very interesting that Connors, and to some extent I agree, that years it was of no concern that this schema did not actually help students learn to write but it is good that the explanations of how these ideas have impacted comp-rhet classes and how much things have changed in many respects.