SGarza.AfterReadingTate2 History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

Changed line 159 from:
*!!!Lorena!!!
to:
*'''Lorena'''
Changed lines 158-166 from:
-------------------------
to:
-------------------------
*!!!Lorena!!!
--Burnham

I enjoyed this reading because this is the second essay in Tate that has mentioned Elbow. I am also reading this author's work in another class I am taking and just find it interesting the connections I am making with my readings. I think Elbow has some excellent ideas and techniques for writing. When I was thinking about what expressive pedagogy was I thought about what I have read in Writing With Power by Elbow and his techniques of freewriting along with other techniques I am reading about such as journaling. Not everyone agrees with this style of pedagogy, but no one ever agrees 100% on any teaching or writing style. It's all up to the preferences of the teacher or writer.

--Covino

I wasn't sure what to expect here either. I did enjoy the previous essay more and that might categorize me as an expressivist. However, I believe some of the rules of rhetorical pedagogy are important. I think these rules are important when writing a class paper or something that needs organization or is trying to make a point. Unfortunately, I think that Covino can be a little confusing at times with all the theories and info he throws out there and I don't agree with alot of what he says even if I find some of his basic 'rules' important.
Added lines 145-158:
----------------
Peace Love and Expressionism
By Ben

Tate.

I like that the first thing mentioned is that is ideological, any single approach supports an underlying set of values while questioning (19). Basically, a lot of this seems like more of the same. a lot of name dropping, and mentions of what literature exist on expressionist writing. either going to come across as , more about Elbow, or the hell is going on? not really accessible if you already get the references, so I know how I would really tell someone to approach this.

kind of important to see, historically, when this movement came about (the 1960s and 1970s) because it gives you an idea of the mindset it grew out of (by that I mean Hippies). Burnham states on page 21 that relationship between theory and practice, especially in expressivism, is complex. Practice is often based in intuition or convention and precedes theorizing. Theory can attack and thus neutralize counterarguments. This basically describes the running theme within expressivism between practice and theory. A lot of expressivism involves writing until you find Nirvana, and then you are a good writer. This is why I think great to take parts of expressivism and mix them with other theories. If you just use one ignoring a lot of the picture.

Background theory focuses on, I guess, the background work that goes into expressionist works. This involves rehearsing, drafting, and revising. Basically, the idea is that writing itself helps the writer come to the meaning of their paper. Burnham quotes Murray as saying writing itself helps the writer see the (25). He also claims that expressive writing requires students to a phenomenology of self. What I get out of this chapter, more than anything, is that expressivists are convinced that what they are doing is some higher form of writing that opens up every pore of the brain and leads anyone who reads it to action. It seems pretty pretentious. I really see how anyone can expect to simply teach someone to write phenomenology of self. Especially in one semester of freshman comp.

And all I have to say about that.
-------------------------
Changed lines 35-40 from:
>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<

'''Sami H.'''
one can ask which pedagogy is better. Is it the expressive or the rhetorical? I most definitely do not know.
to:
Deleted lines 11-18:
<<<<<<<

=======
<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<
Changed lines 40-55 from:
Burnham

Burnham explanation of an expressive pedagogy is pretty much what I expected. Free writing, journal keeping,and reflective writing are exactly what this type of pedagogy employs. Like most of what we have studied so far, this pedagogy comes with many criticisms. Critics like, Sharon Crowley do not believe that this pedagogy is not even a rhetoric because it does not fit into the elements of the rhetorical triangle mentioned in the beginning of the chapter.

A major practice in the expresivist pedagogy is the "anti textbook" practice. Now that I think about it, we never had a textbook in Dr. Jackson's advanced comp. class.
Burnham claims that the expresivist pedagogy is based on a theory of relations between language, meaning making, and self-development. According to Peter Elbow,some expresivist writing even becomes political or social. Britton also believes that the expressive pedagogy borrows from many other theoretical centers, like linguistics and psychology; which makes sense when you think about it.
Burnham claims that "Expressivism originated in opposition to mainstream practice, offering an alternative to current-traditional teaching". To this, the mainstream reacted in a variety of ways. "Fringe movement" or "untheorized" were some of the labels given to expressivism. These critiques launched many to defend their pedagogy. People like Sherrie Gradin, Carolyn Erikson Hill, and Cynthia Gannett were some of those defenders.
Burnahm goes on to explain how expressivism still thrives.

Covino

The "rules for successful paragraphs" that Covino starts his essay with should be very familiar to all of my fellow students. They are what Covino calls,"anitexpressionist". It would make sense that Tate would put this essay after Burnham's. Sometimes attention to this concept "expands" and contracts", and "sometimes defined as global art, or as formulaic attention to correctness an style". Like anything else, sometimes people are tired of rhetorical pedagogy, and something like the expressivist pedagogy arrives. Then people find flaws with that, and go back to the rhetorical pedagogy. Go figure...

Many of the famous philosophical names we know are behind classic rhetoric. Names like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates influence these "back to the classics" writing that people like Crowley create.

Covino closes the essay with the statement,"we have returned from the current-traditional compression of rhetoric to an expansive sense of its scope and a more fully inclusive and international appreciation for the range of backgrounds, needs, and desires that inform the teaching of reading and writing". After reading Burnham's and Covino's essay,
one can ask which pedagogy is better. Is it the expressive or the rhetorical? I most definitely do not know.
to:
one can ask which pedagogy is better. Is it the expressive or the rhetorical? I most definitely do not know.
Added lines 170-172:
'''Marilyn'''
I think that my notions about this chapter were on the money. I love the idea of writing to find a voice, and empowering students. I am not sure exactly where that should fit into a person's educational career. I am sure it would be a different experience with each individual student. The Rhetorical Pedagogy history from Classic, to Current-Traditional, and finally to Twentieth Century seems to follow a pattern that I think I have seen before. First, it was something that had to do with class, or being associated with a certain class. Then it moved onto a more cohesive set of rules and styles in order for it to be taught to different populations other than white men. Finally, it has become a place for resistance against traditions in the field.
Added lines 143-169:
-----
Kathy H Reflections on Tate's Articles

>These two articles accomplished two things in my opinion: 1) clarified what expressivism means in essence, and 2) muddled the meaning of rhetorical pedagogy.

Expressivism is neatly summed up by saying:

Expressivism places the writer at the center Employs freewriting, journal keeping, reflective writing, and small-group collaboration which fosters a aesthetic, cognitive, and moral development Expressive pedagogy is and purposeful based on a theory of relations b/t language, meaning making, and self-development.

In the section on Expressive Function, the idea of the mode (rather than form) of expressivism became comprehensible. His developed taxonomy of writing - similar to the process of how children learn language; has become part of the tactic tradition in contemporary teaching of writing (National Writing Project and Whole Language movements) resulting in concrete understanding and learning. He says there are three kinds of writing: Transactional writing - informative, regulative and persuasive writing involves transaction b/t writer and reader Poetic writing: writers acting in the spectator role; purpose: pleases / satisfies the writer the readers response is to share that satisfaction; writing that exists for its own sake; achieves nothing else Expressive writing: mediates the other two; represents a role rather than a form; out loud on This taxonomy has influenced process-based approaches to writing

Coda: the dichotomy of theory and practice praxis, the convergence of the two Engaged pedagogy: progressive, holistic education; repairing the splits b/t body and mind, intellect and spirit, teaching and learning and theory and practice Engaged pedagogy, holistic teaching the expressivist project

After this thorough discussion on the ins and outs of expressivism, it is my understanding that the main idea about expressive pedagogy is that the writer is at the center of the writing triangle, and the audience, the message, and the language are the elements of the rhetorical act (19). The examples and in this article demonstrate concrete thought processes that link the method of this form of process writing with the desired outcome a method of teaching writing that inspires and engages both student and teacher. This is how I understand expressivism, but I still feel sketchy about all that it entails.

Rhetorical Pedagogy Discussion:

I really am confused by all the rambling in this chapter. Covino throws out a bunch of viewpoints/theories/defenses/arguments about what rhetorical pedagogy is about in the 21st century. He draws from so many authors that it is difficult to keep up with the contexts of explanations. Yes, attempts are made to the meaning by the various authors, but unlike the discussion on expressisism, I remain confused as to the relevance of traditional Aristotelian or Ciceronian rhetoric as it pertains to the multicultural classrooms today. The one thing that Covino did say is this: a full sense of rhetorical pedagogy must include a historical survey (such as the one wrote) and practice, for this is the foundation for the adaptations and divergences that might define rhetorical pedagogy today. (39)

Further notes / thoughts:

Classical rhetoric precept (set of rules that provide a definite method and system of speaking) imitation (the use of models to learn how others have used language) composition exercises (a graded series of exercises in writing and speaking themes) declamation (fictitious speeches deliberative (political) and Forensic (legal) speech) Sequencing the systematic ordering or classroom activities (42-3)

Current-traditional rhetoric: Maintains unity, coherence, and correctness as primary virtues and generates textbooks that emphasize four modes of discourse narration, description, exposition, and argumentation as the standard venues for writers. (44) The idea that reality is has brought into focus the problem of defining rhetoric itself. Paolo Valesio: is the functional organization of discourse, within the social and cultural all of language, in its realization as discourse. (47)

The definition of rhetoric is unsettled; literacy implies rhetoric; rhetorical skill - a shifting complex of aims, audiences, and versions of truth; can a rich conception of rhetorical pedagogy be sustained in academic and institutional contexts that continue to value formulaic models of writing and learning? (49) <<<<<<<
Added lines 96-104:
<<<<<<<
-----
'''[+%color=limegreen%Andrea Montalvo After Reading Tate+]'''

'''Expressive Pedagogy, Christopher Burnham:''' I enjoyed this essay more so than the latter. According to Burnham, "expressivism places the writer at the center...expressivist pedagogy employs freewriting, journal keeping, reflective writing and small-group dialogic collaborative response to foster a writer's aesthetic, cognitive and moral development" (19). Although I like the idea of the writer being the center because it is essential to foster individuality, I feel some teacher-student interaction is needed. He also notes how the relationship between theory and practice is complex because practice is usually based in intuition or convention and precedes theorizing (21). Burnham discusses how expressivism uses a combination of sources, ranging from traditional textbooks to commentaries by expressivist scholars. One of the texts he mentions is Peter Elbow's ''Writing Without Teachers'' published in 1973. In Elbow's teacherless classroom, "freewriting helps students discover ideas and their significance, center of gravity exercises develop and focus these ideas, and peer response groups allow writers to test their writing on an actual audience and revise on the basis of that response" (23). This is similar to what I've done in past creative writing classes. Burnham mentions that because expressivism emerged in opposition to mainstream pracetice, it has its share of critics, and he states, expressivists distrusted theory because it often distracted attention from students and teaching" (28).

'''Rhetorical Pedagogy, William Corvino:''' The "rules for successful paragraphs" Corvino opens his essay with remind me of how my middle and high school teachers wanted essays to look. He provides a mini (well mini compared to Connors anyway) history of rhetoric beginning with the Greeks and then ending with the ongiong and everchanging debate of what constitutes rhetoric. Corvino does a lot of namedropping and citing, but I'm not sure if he actually defines what rhetorical pedagogy is because of his statement, "obviously the definition of rhetoric is not going to be settled" (48). I wasn't sure if this was a rhetorical statement or a confession. He notes in the end of his essay, "the question, now as always it seems, is whether a rich conception of rhetorical pedagogy can be sustained in academic and institutional contexts that continue to value formulaic models of writing and learning" (50). I interpreted this as his way of providing a pseudo-definition of what rhetorical pedagogy is or will become in the future.
-----
=======
Changed lines 141-142 from:
to:
>>>>>>>
Added lines 108-132:

-----------

Yvette E.

After Tate:

Burnham:

After reading this chapter I became aware that I already use these methods in the classroom. My curriculum in not completely swamped in this pedagogy but does intermix it on a daily basis. pedagogy employs free writing, journal keeping, reflective writing, and small-group dialogic collaborative response to foster a aesthetic, cognitive and moral .encourages, even insists upon, a sense of writer presence even in research-based or (19).

As English teachers we require journals at the beginning of class to get the students settled in and to get their mind focused in the right direction. Then we also do promote the students to carry their from their free writing and creative writing to their research. And we all have a research project of some sort due as a major grade for the 9 weeks/semester depending on department.

I also had no idea there was such controversy over using these methods as proper writing methods. I had always assumed that a good, healthy combination of methods is the best way to address all different types of writer. For instance, some students use graphic organizers better than free writing and some students work off of journal entries better than outlines. Each child is different and it is difficult for me to understand why the teacher would argue that the use of these methods is not ample for teaching writing. Unless they are arguing that one should not only use these methods solely. Maybe this has something to do with different styles teachers carry and develop; for instance, some professors are more traditionalist and some are libertarian.

I did enjoy the historical elements of the chapters. It was nice to get a solid background of what this pedagogy is and how it was formed: movement originated in the and the as a set of values and practices opposing current traditional (21). Then the discussion the current traditional pedagogy was even more enlightening and enabled me to draw more applicable deductions to my classroom setting and experiences. The explanation of how the use of or the nontraditional textbooks was a controversial issue as well. It pretty much seemed like a history reading all the way until the end where it began to discuss newer and more recent works in this area such as Robert Brooke.

Covino:

I enjoyed the history and introduction of rhetoric to the classroom. I was interesting having an explanation for something that has always been in every classroom attended. Since when I went to school, rhetoric was already successfully integrated to the classroom setting. overgeneralize a bit, we might say that the and the defined rhetorical pedagogy with reference to a classroom that was self-consciously Aristotelian or Ciceronian or otherwise reverent to a canconical history, while the further complicated historical rhetoric and rhetorical pedagogy by pointing up the mismatch between a Western pedagogical tradition aimed at educating privileged males and the promise and challenges of the multicultural (39).

Covino continues the rhetoric discussion by going back in time and discussing the Classical rhetoric. Classical use by the BCE sophists throughout history. He gives multiple examples of Sophists; such as Socrates, Plato, and older sophists such as Hippias, Thrasymachus. This part was a little confusing for me and how it applies to the current pedagogies, but sure with a little clarification in class, be on the right track.

Then Covino moves on to the current and traditional rhetoric and the twentieth century rhetoric. I was a little anxious to see if there were any actual changes and development throughout time, or if it was still similar to the traditional forms of rhetoric. Here he explains how we have come to a more inclusive form on rhetoric where we learn and appreciate the basics, background and roots of rhetoric in our classic sophists.
Changed lines 96-107 from:
to:
----
'''Darcy L.'''

''Tate:''

For Expressivist Pedagogy, the clearest sense I got out of what it entails was at the beginning of the article. The theory behind it is that it places the writer in the center. The is assigned to the writers , psychological, social, and spiritual development and how that development influences individual consciousness and social (19). As far as classroom strategies go, this results in using freewriting, journaling, reflective writing, and small-group responses. The expressivist teacher wants to hear the or presence even in research writing. It seems as though there is less (and therefore different from Process Pedagogy) and more exploratory writing. This approach probably is more individualized than the Process Pedagogy method and seems extremely subjective. not sure how an instructor would even assign grades (other than pass/fail) to such writing.

Sometimes it helps to see what the naysayers have to say about a particular theory or process in order to get a handle on what is actually happening. Expressivism is disparaged by those who oppose it as being , atheoretical, anti-intellectual and elitist, or, conversely, standardless, antitraditional, and (20). Expressivism itself grew out of opposition to the current-traditional model, so between those in opposition to Expressivism and that which Expressivism itself is in opposition to, it makes a bit more sense contextually.

As for Rhetorical Pedagogy, this seems to encompass multiple individual movements that centered around classical rhetoric and/or models that were loosely based on those general concepts. The key word here seems to be itself. As Covino notes, rhetoric a complex set of factors that affect the production and interpretation of (39). Those complex sets of factors range according to the model, be it Classical Rhetoric (writing should approach truth as a contingent theory), Current-Traditional Rhetoric (more objective, less la Lockean empiricism), or Twentieth Century Rhetoric (a reaction against current- on the interpretation and meaning of pentad, model, etc.).

At the end of this chapter, I felt about as confused as when I linguistic quality of language as symbols and tying the ancient philosophers back to everything never seemed to offer concrete applications to pedagogy and classroom activities. Perhaps looking for something not supposed to be there in the first place. Covino does note that the definition of rhetoric itself is not a settled matter: its canonical history, rhetoric has been identified w/ persuasion, ornate style, empty and manipulative language, and plain (48). Perhaps our class discussion will help bring all of this into perspective.
Added lines 78-96:

-----

'''James'''

Burnham, "Expressive Pedagogy"

As I thought, this is about the writer being at the center of things. Self-expression is the basis, and voice is regarded as one of the most important aspects. The problem is clearly trying to address the issue of how you help someone to express themself when they are the person who most closely knows themself. Also, how do you evaluate someone's expression of self in writing when they are perhaps the only ones truly in-the-know of what they are wanting to express and how they are wanting to express it? How are you to be the teacher in expressivist writing or even are you to be the teacher? It seems that in this sort of writing, the teacher takes a kind of backseat and becomes more of a facilitator for the student/writer.

Note: I was a little curious as to why bell hooks does not capitalize her name. It seems that it is symbolic of the idea that she wants the substance of her writing recognized and not so much the person who wrote it. It seems to me that she accomplishes the opposite of her intended effect because of the unconventionality of having her name in all lower case.

Covino, "Rhetorical Pedagogy"

I was annoyed with this article because it attempts to present rhetorical pedagogy, but Covino doesn't even come to a definition of what rhetoric really is (p. 48). I know it's a changing definition, but I am left with the question, "How can you write an article on a pedagogy for something you can not even decide how you want to define?"

It's no wonder the bulk of this reads like a bibliography; I don't get the sense that the author really has anything new to say. Furthering this, the only things I really found of use in this article (in terms of useful pedagogical ideas) were in the long quotes from other books (p. 40, 42-3 for example).

The only useful thing I really got out of this was that rhetorical pedagogy seems more focused on the "discourse" and how one should behave within it to attain optimal results than on the individual. This seems to be at odds with the expressivist school.
Changed line 15 from:
'''Holly C. - Post-Reading'''
to:
<<<<<<<
Changed lines 18-20 from:
<<<<<<<

'''Sami H.'''
to:
<<<<<<<

''Sami H.'''
Changed lines 37-39 from:
Covino closes the essay with the statement,"we have returned from the current-traditional compression of rhetoric to an expansive sense of its scope and a more fully inclusive and international appreciation for the range of backgrounds, needs, and desires that inform the teaching of reading and writing". After reading Burnham's and Covino's essay, one can ask which pedagogy is better. Is it the expressive or the rhetorical? I most definitely do not know.
to:
Covino closes the essay with the statement,"we have returned from the current-traditional compression of rhetoric to an expansive sense of its scope and a more fully inclusive and international appreciation for the range of backgrounds, needs, and desires that inform the teaching of reading and writing". After reading Burnham's and Covino's essay, one can ask which pedagogy is better. Is it the expressive or the rhetorical? I most definitely do not know.

-----
Changed lines 41-51 from:
The most helpful information I found in Christopher Burnhams article on Expressive Pedagogy were the many definitions and statements made within the article about specifically what Expressive Pedagogy is, and what methods it employs for teaching. From what read, it seems that expressive pedagogy seems to be a very student centered method. The freewriting, journal keeping, reflective writing, and emphasis on the writer seems to be very much interested in keeping the true voice in the writing. Expressive pedagogy is centered around the notion of rekindling a passions and making students get excited about their writing. I am very interested by the fact that expressivism is an amalgam of many sources for teaching.

Some of what expressive pedagogy entails is centered around the work of Peter Elbow. Elbow feels that the responsibility for control over learning should be placed in the lap and not center totally on the teacher. As a high school teacher, this notion of letting my freshmen and sophomores drive is a very scary thing, but I do agree that the majority of learning is probably done under those circumstances.

pedagogy is systematic and purposeful, based on a theory of relations between language, meaning making, and self
- (24-25). What this quotation says to me is that students working within an expressivist pedagogy are monitoring their own progress, drawing some of their own conclusions and measuring their own progress. The expressive pedagogist does not weigh in on the situation for the students or tell them what to think. The students come to their conclusions on their own.

'''Covino '''

pedagogy...consists in both more deliberate attention of rhetoric and the acknowledgement that names a complex set of factors that affect the interpretation of (39). Beyond this definitions, I sort of cringed when Covino said that, in order to fully grasp the meaning of rhetorical pedagogy, one most have a of rhetorical theory and (39), but was appreciative of the brevity with which he went over several periods in rhetorical history. What I essentially got out of the article, and, I could be wrong since I am finding this information difficult to digest, is that rhetorical pedagogy is a method of instruction in which a student is taught how to speak and write effectively. I know that sounds really simple. Basically, what getting is that rhetorical pedagogy feels as if we have to be taught how to be effective communicators. We just come out of the womb quoting Plato or Aristotle and winning every argument.

sorry if coming out of this confused, but am hopeful that I can get more clarification in class tonight.
to:
=======
'''Holly C. - Post
-Reading'''
Added lines 44-77:

<<<<<<<

'''Sami H.'''
Burnham

Burnham explanation of an expressive pedagogy is pretty much what I expected. Free writing, journal keeping,and reflective writing are exactly what this type of pedagogy employs. Like most of what we have studied so far, this pedagogy comes with many criticisms. Critics like, Sharon Crowley do not believe that this pedagogy is not even a rhetoric because it does not fit into the elements of the rhetorical triangle mentioned in the beginning of the chapter.

A major practice in the expresivist pedagogy is the "anti textbook" practice. Now that I think about it, we never had a textbook in Dr. Jackson's advanced comp. class.
Burnham claims that the expresivist pedagogy is based on a theory of relations between language, meaning making, and self-development. According to Peter Elbow,some expresivist writing even becomes political or social. Britton also believes that the expressive pedagogy borrows from many other theoretical centers, like linguistics and psychology; which makes sense when you think about it.
Burnham claims that "Expressivism originated in opposition to mainstream practice, offering an alternative to current-traditional teaching". To this, the mainstream reacted in a variety of ways. "Fringe movement" or "untheorized" were some of the labels given to expressivism. These critiques launched many to defend their pedagogy. People like Sherrie Gradin, Carolyn Erikson Hill, and Cynthia Gannett were some of those defenders.
Burnahm goes on to explain how expressivism still thrives.

Covino

The "rules for successful paragraphs" that Covino starts his essay with should be very familiar to all of my fellow students. They are what Covino calls,"anitexpressionist". It would make sense that Tate would put this essay after Burnham's. Sometimes attention to this concept "expands" and contracts", and "sometimes defined as global art, or as formulaic attention to correctness an style". Like anything else, sometimes people are tired of rhetorical pedagogy, and something like the expressivist pedagogy arrives. Then people find flaws with that, and go back to the rhetorical pedagogy. Go figure...

Many of the famous philosophical names we know are behind classic rhetoric. Names like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates influence these "back to the classics" writing that people like Crowley create.

Covino closes the essay with the statement,"we have returned from the current-traditional compression of rhetoric to an expansive sense of its scope and a more fully inclusive and international appreciation for the range of backgrounds, needs, and desires that inform the teaching of reading and writing". After reading Burnham's and Covino's essay, one can ask which pedagogy is better. Is it the expressive or the rhetorical? I most definitely do not know.
=======
The most helpful information I found in Christopher Burnhams article on Expressive Pedagogy were the many definitions and statements made within the article about specifically what Expressive Pedagogy is, and what methods it employs for teaching. From what read, it seems that expressive pedagogy seems to be a very student centered method. The freewriting, journal keeping, reflective writing, and emphasis on the writer seems to be very much interested in keeping the true voice in the writing. Expressive pedagogy is centered around the notion of rekindling a passions and making students get excited about their writing. I am very interested by the fact that expressivism is an amalgam of many sources for teaching.

Some of what expressive pedagogy entails is centered around the work of Peter Elbow. Elbow feels that the responsibility for control over learning should be placed in the lap and not center totally on the teacher. As a high school teacher, this notion of letting my freshmen and sophomores drive is a very scary thing, but I do agree that the majority of learning is probably done under those circumstances.

pedagogy is systematic and purposeful, based on a theory of relations between language, meaning making, and self- (24-25). What this quotation says to me is that students working within an expressivist pedagogy are monitoring their own progress, drawing some of their own conclusions and measuring their own progress. The expressive pedagogist does not weigh in on the situation for the students or tell them what to think. The students come to their conclusions on their own.

'''Covino '''

pedagogy...consists in both more deliberate attention of rhetoric and the acknowledgement that names a complex set of factors that affect the interpretation of (39). Beyond this definitions, I sort of cringed when Covino said that, in order to fully grasp the meaning of rhetorical pedagogy, one most have a of rhetorical theory and (39), but was appreciative of the brevity with which he went over several periods in rhetorical history. What I essentially got out of the article, and, I could be wrong since I am finding this information difficult to digest, is that rhetorical pedagogy is a method of instruction in which a student is taught how to speak and write effectively. I know that sounds really simple. Basically, what getting is that rhetorical pedagogy feels as if we have to be taught how to be effective communicators. We just come out of the womb quoting Plato or Aristotle and winning every argument.

sorry if coming out of this confused, but am hopeful that I can get more clarification in class tonight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Added lines 12-14:
<<<<<<<

=======
Changed lines 16-37 from:
to:
>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<

'''Sami H.'''
Burnham

Burnham explanation of an expressive pedagogy is pretty much what I expected. Free writing, journal keeping,and reflective writing are exactly what this type of pedagogy employs. Like most of what we have studied so far, this pedagogy comes with many criticisms. Critics like, Sharon Crowley do not believe that this pedagogy is not even a rhetoric because it does not fit into the elements of the rhetorical triangle mentioned in the beginning of the chapter.

A major practice in the expresivist pedagogy is the "anti textbook" practice. Now that I think about it, we never had a textbook in Dr. Jackson's advanced comp. class.
Burnham claims that the expresivist pedagogy is based on a theory of relations between language, meaning making, and self-development. According to Peter Elbow,some expresivist writing even becomes political or social. Britton also believes that the expressive pedagogy borrows from many other theoretical centers, like linguistics and psychology; which makes sense when you think about it.
Burnham claims that "Expressivism originated in opposition to mainstream practice, offering an alternative to current-traditional teaching". To this, the mainstream reacted in a variety of ways. "Fringe movement" or "untheorized" were some of the labels given to expressivism. These critiques launched many to defend their pedagogy. People like Sherrie Gradin, Carolyn Erikson Hill, and Cynthia Gannett were some of those defenders.
Burnahm goes on to explain how expressivism still thrives.

Covino

The "rules for successful paragraphs" that Covino starts his essay with should be very familiar to all of my fellow students. They are what Covino calls,"anitexpressionist". It would make sense that Tate would put this essay after Burnham's. Sometimes attention to this concept "expands" and contracts", and "sometimes defined as global art, or as formulaic attention to correctness an style". Like anything else, sometimes people are tired of rhetorical pedagogy, and something like the expressivist pedagogy arrives. Then people find flaws with that, and go back to the rhetorical pedagogy. Go figure...

Many of the famous philosophical names we know are behind classic rhetoric. Names like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates influence these "back to the classics" writing that people like Crowley create.

Covino closes the essay with the statement,"we have returned from the current-traditional compression of rhetoric to an expansive sense of its scope and a more fully inclusive and international appreciation for the range of backgrounds, needs, and desires that inform the teaching of reading and writing". After reading Burnham's and Covino's essay, one can ask which pedagogy is better. Is it the expressive or the rhetorical? I most definitely do not know.
=======
Added line 49:
>>>>>>>
Changed lines 12-24 from:
to:
'''Holly C. - Post-Reading'''

The most helpful information I found in Christopher Burnhams article on Expressive Pedagogy were the many definitions and statements made within the article about specifically what Expressive Pedagogy is, and what methods it employs for teaching. From what read, it seems that expressive pedagogy seems to be a very student centered method. The freewriting, journal keeping, reflective writing, and emphasis on the writer seems to be very much interested in keeping the true voice in the writing. Expressive pedagogy is centered around the notion of rekindling a passions and making students get excited about their writing. I am very interested by the fact that expressivism is an amalgam of many sources for teaching.

Some of what expressive pedagogy entails is centered around the work of Peter Elbow. Elbow feels that the responsibility for control over learning should be placed in the lap and not center totally on the teacher. As a high school teacher, this notion of letting my freshmen and sophomores drive is a very scary thing, but I do agree that the majority of learning is probably done under those circumstances.

pedagogy is systematic and purposeful, based on a theory of relations between language, meaning making, and self- (24-25). What this quotation says to me is that students working within an expressivist pedagogy are monitoring their own progress, drawing some of their own conclusions and measuring their own progress. The expressive pedagogist does not weigh in on the situation for the students or tell them what to think. The students come to their conclusions on their own.

'''Covino '''

pedagogy...consists in both more deliberate attention of rhetoric and the acknowledgement that names a complex set of factors that affect the interpretation of (39). Beyond this definitions, I sort of cringed when Covino said that, in order to fully grasp the meaning of rhetorical pedagogy, one most have a of rhetorical theory and (39), but was appreciative of the brevity with which he went over several periods in rhetorical history. What I essentially got out of the article, and, I could be wrong since I am finding this information difficult to digest, is that rhetorical pedagogy is a method of instruction in which a student is taught how to speak and write effectively. I know that sounds really simple. Basically, what getting is that rhetorical pedagogy feels as if we have to be taught how to be effective communicators. We just come out of the womb quoting Plato or Aristotle and winning every argument.

sorry if coming out of this confused, but am hopeful that I can get more clarification in class tonight.
Added lines 1-12:
!!!Edith After Reading Tate

Christopher Burnham

I found this reading interesting because it connects to the material and one of the I am studying in Creative Writing class this semester. Before I go on, I do agree with James statement, pedagogy is ideological; any single approach supports an underlying set of values while questioning (19). In addition, Berlin notes, what I have seen to be imperative to rhetoric and that is the four elements of rhetoric: the writer, audience, message, and language (Burnham 19). One of the most recognizable names when studying expressivism is Peter Elbow. Particularly in this reading, the general idea is that people interpret or define expressivism or expressivist differently. I like how this author uses a lot of well known names to support his argument that expressivist are to be considered legitimate teachers of writing. The chapter also covers negative perception of expressivism, and at the same time defends the subject matter. In regards to the list provided for us and keeping it in mind, I found: growth as a writer Voice, Process, Error, Service Learning, and Literacy to be the top issues that expressivist deal with. And as far as the role teachers play, Thomas Merton claims that [should] accept the ethical responsibility of (20). I agree with that statement, but to a certain extent. If anything, important for students to find themselves in or through education as Merton notes. I also agree that expressivism is complex (Burnham 21). Again, because I am still learning about expressivism, I still make a final judgment or complete definition on the term. Although, even when done with the course, I think there will still be much on the theory itself, so I sit here and write that in a few months I can get back to this post assignment and say I have a conclusive definition. There is so much that I agree with in this reading, in addition, it has given me a different perspective on the subject besides the positive one only in my other course that I can only say that better to look at how the student is learning and if it is helping, if not then why should anyone, teacher particularly, disregard its theory and practice as one that is terrible.

William A. Covino

In this reading, the name that stuck out for me was I.A. Richards and his impact on the of rhetoric. Rhetoric is still another term that is not easy to define; there are words to give it some explanation, such as the act of persuasion. The most important thing to remember when it comes to language is its purpose: encoder (writer), decoder (audience), and reality (context) (Covino 37). The relationship between this is the outcome of the objectivity, I believe. Covino notes that the history of rhetoric has a lot to do with the production and interpretation of texts (39). The types of rhetoric include: classical rhetoric, current traditional rhetoric, and twentieth century rhetoric. I think the only thing I can really write here is that this chapter gives a lot of names such as Richards and Kenneth Burke, which I am familiar with.
----