Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel
Added lines 174-183:
Added lines 160-173:
Changed lines 141-142 from:
Added lines 143-150:
Deleted lines 142-156:
having problems with this. First, finding it a little fluffy. Second, finding it very fluffy. My problem seems to be that I always want to find a middle ground between things, but everything I can read about composition is arguing for extremes. While Tobin seems to describe finding a middle ground between the different process pedagogies, I still help but wonder how much good actually doing. He discusses inserting mini lessons on audience awareness, word choice, and what not, but it still feels like most of what he describes happening in the classroom is overly idealistic play-time.
I wish he had described postprocess more, because what he does explain about it sounds pretty much perfect. I gather that postprocess involves mixing process teaching (or by not ) with more traditional teaching methods, such as studying professional writing, and doing a lot of revision based writing within a seminar-esque environment. This sounds a lot like what my teaching method would be, but he go into enough detail about it to actually win me over. Instead, he talks about how postprocess is going backwards and somehow detrimental because it requires that teaching have a method and rules. Quite frankly, it sounds like he wants teaching to be anarchic rather than democratic. I mean democratic in the patriotic b.s. way, but in the idealistic sense that the students and teachers play an equal part in the learning process. There need to be rules and guidelines, and there needs to be a perceived reason for a class to exist. Composition teachers have historically had a hard time validating their own existence to the rest of the academy, and while this is always some big mystery throughout academia, from my perspective it seems to make perfect sense.
From what I gather, teaching composition is more about teaching the students to think as individuals and inform them of the actual creative process that goes into writing a paper. These are skills students need, but they seem to need to be coupled with other lessons. Personally, I felt like Technical and Report Writing was a much more valuable class in terms of explaining the sense of audience awareness and appropriateness of different writing styles for different situations than modern Comp classes seem to do. It feels like a modern composition teacher is juggling too many considerations about needs and students backgrounds to actually focus on actually giving the students what they need. If the point of freshman composition is by any means supposed to be the process of giving college students the tools they need to succeed in classroom writing, it seems like it would be effective to focus on appropriate ways to write specific kinds of research papers as well as just the students voice. I realize that this is limited to my own experience in the freshman comp classes, as a college freshman, but even Tobin points out that what actually goes on in the classroom is significantly different than what process pedagogy and textbooks in general discuss.
I agree with a lot of what he says, but I know if I agree with his answers, which could easily stem from a misunderstanding about what saying. not that Johnny write, process pedagogues were suddenly saying to the rest of us, just that you, Professor Stuffed Shirt, (6). I figure out for the life of me if agreeing with that statement or snuffing it completely. He also seems to scoff at , but at the same time seems to adopt their ideals (again, I might not be completely reading this correctly).
A lot of the critiques of process pedagogy that he argues against are pretty solid, to me. His arguments are solid as well, but they disprove the initial statements, or argue them for the wrong points. The first bullet, that pedagogy has become so regimented that it has turned into the kind of rules-driven product that it originally critiqued, page 10, is one of these. My argument here would simply be it be rule driven? You can have rules and still teach while letting students express themselves. This is what I meant by fluffy. I just get the vibe that needs to be happy friendly, non-colonizing, just be positive. Instead of arguing why process pedagogy be rule driven, he simply explains that it more to do with the quirks of some individual teachers and the nature of the textbook business than with some inherent flaw in the process approach.
While discussing the second bulleted argument, that pedagogies are inrresponsible because they fail to teach basic and necessary skills and conventions, he immediately addresses the problem that I have with it: has been a concern from the very beginning-that process was too soft, too touchy-feely, too student directed to do its job: teach students how to (11). He backs this with the wide range of different and necessarily subjective opinions about what constitutes good writing, it is unclear what could possibly constitute proof in this (11-12). process pedagogy works, its proponents argue, students will adopt more productive attitudes and practices (e.g., starting earlier, employing freewriting and other invention strategies, seeking feedback, relying on revision, etc.) that may take time to integrate but that will remain long after the course has (12). So, trying to teach productive techniques, rather than writing? not arguing that this in itself is bad, but only part of the equation. I propose grammar lessons or anything, simply because hope that if 12 English teachers have managed to pass a student, he should have some kind of understanding of how grammar works (I know this ever the case), but I find it hard to simply just abandon it. I think just going to cut this short now because I could go into a whole ordeal tying this in with the prior readings in Lives on the Boundary for Basic Writing. Actually, I think I could write an entire dissertation on this topic.
In conclusion: I disagree.
Added lines 142-157:
Added lines 1-17:
Added line 28:
Changed lines 83-85 from:
*Sami H. This first reading from the Connors book was very impressive. I had always been aware that women faced much inequality in the past, but I had never realized how much that affected the evolution of written and oral rhetoric.
Sami H. impressive. I had always been aware that women faced much inequality in the past, but I had never realized how much that affected the evolution of written and oral rhetoric.
Changed lines 88-93 from:
Changed lines 90-94 from:
This text is fascinating in that it answered a question that has bothered me for some time. I like how Connors sets up the first chapter in the intro, by discussing how important it is that we not overlook the 19th centuries impact on rhet comp. From there he gets into the gender issue, and this portion threw me. It was everything I didn't expect. Most texts, that I have read, that deal with gender issues, examine the issues very critically, but this was fairly analytical. I loved the approach and the logic used to discuss the evolution of rhet comp as gender became mixed. I found it fascinating that the more women were involved the more the work turned from oral argument to written, and the more the methods of assessment were standardized, and less debate.
Changed line 100 from:
Added lines 102-105:
Deleted lines 0-6:
In the introduction, Connor only gives a glimpse of the learning process. After WW II in composition was not concerned with what students were taught as how they were taught, (16) besides that the only other issues have to do with the real meaning of composition-rhetoric and its history. He notes that composition was badly taught, was destructive, leading to desiccation (to drain of emotional) of the creativity, to useless fear about meaningless (and probably fictional) block paranoia about mechanical issues, and to dead, imitative, ponderous student prose that attempted to mimic the dead, imitative, ponderous prose of (Connors 16). I think this one quote comes down to issues such as: growth as a writer, voice, process, error, service learning, good writing, goals of a writing course and the role of a teacher.
The text connects to Lad in that he explains the significance of students becoming better writers and Lad being a good instructor. Lad also begins by stating that he was used to writing five-paragraph essays that were dreadful and boring that lead to insignificant learning about writing. And confirms that composition has been taught terribly, so bad that today composition instructors are still trying to implement the writing process, so that students will become better writers.
Lastly, the text begins to break down in Influences. explains that theories and pedagogies changed older agonistic rhetoric oriented only toward males to a more modern irenic (favoring) rhetoric that can include both (24). Essentially, women brought forth the changes in the classroom and because they did, rhetoric was taught differently. Not surprisingly, women had to struggle to get their voice heard, compete against men, since men thought they were the only ones capable of being intellectual scholars. However, that was not the case. The chapter also covers meaning was taken as an insult and ethical appeal from a woman was unimaginable. In relation to the reading, referring to Elbow and Murray, freewriting is part of the writing process, and women were the first ones to apply such a practice by writing letters. Here is where we first see the connections to changes brought forth by women that lead to some of the writing practices used today.
Changed lines 2-19 from:
Changed lines 107-117 from:
Changed lines 72-77 from:
Changed lines 80-84 from:
Changed lines 86-99 from:
Added line 107:
Changed lines 74-75 from:
Changed lines 73-74 from:
Added lines 55-74:
Changed lines 53-54 from:
I like Connors discussion of the evolution of rhetoric and his criticism of the term "current traditional rhetoric." I agree with his dissatisfaction with this blanket term because rhetoric has grown and branched out to speak to a
growin number of diverse groups. We no longer have only white males attending Universities like as we did in the 1820's to the 1920's. As the need for different populations to find a voice in academia grows and and changes, so does the definition of rhetoric.
I like Connors discussion of the evolution of rhetoric and his criticism of the term "current traditional rhetoric." I agree with his dissatisfaction with this blanket term because rhetoric has grown and branched out to speak to a number of diverse groups. We no longer have only white males attending Universities as we did in the 1820's to the 1920's. As the need for different populations to find a voice in academia grows and and changes, so does the definition of rhetoric.
Changed lines 52-53 from:
Changed lines 40-41 from:
Changed lines 22-23 from:
Changed lines 22-41 from:
Changed lines 10-13 from:
Added lines 1-13: