SGarza.QuestionFromCharlie History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

Changed lines 26-30 from:
I'm not sure I can say it any better than Wendy, Chelsea, and Michele. I agree that every field continually expands. We always feel that what we have just learned, or what is new, is the heighth of knowledge on a particular field; however, these new developments soon turn into yesterdays news, as newer ideas and understandings are implemented, or old ideas are reassesed, challenged, and altered. So yes, just as everyone has said, literacy, and knowledge in general is an ever growing and always changing entity. This concept is more clear when we look at the technological development of our own time. What was once considered as a hinder to academic and scholastic affairs, the computer, is now the very machine every student, professor, and university rely on for communication, information, and education. I don't think literacy will ever stop expanding as long as technology continues to increase at such a drastic rate.
to:
I'm not sure I can say it any better than Wendy, Chelsea, and Michele. I agree that every field continually expands. We always feel that what we have just learned, or what is new, is the heighth of knowledge on a particular field; however, these new developments soon turn into yesterdays news, as newer ideas and understandings are implemented, or old ideas are reassesed, challenged, and altered. So yes, just as everyone has said, literacy, and knowledge in general is an ever growing and always changing entity. This concept is more clear when we look at the technological development of our own time. What was once considered as a hinder to academic and scholastic affairs, the computer, is now the very machine every student, professor, and university rely on for communication, information, and education. I don't think literacy will ever stop expanding as long as technology continues to increase at such a drastic rate.
-----
'''response from ed'''

Literacy is and always will be the foundation for knowledge. There are studies being done that point to literacy as an elemental function in composition. Just as Isabel displayed her literacy of new cultures, literacy can advance individuals into higher realms of knowledge. It is capable of melding with all different kinds of disciplines and entities. Like Caleb mentioned about technologies and computers: Literacy of these machines has moved education and other ancillary entities into other realms never thought possible twenty years ago.
Changed lines 22-26 from:
----
to:

'''Respone from Caleb'''
----

I'm not sure I can say it any better than Wendy, Chelsea, and Michele. I agree that every field continually expands. We always feel that what we have just learned, or what is new, is the heighth of knowledge on a particular field; however, these new developments soon turn into yesterdays news, as newer ideas and understandings are implemented, or old ideas are reassesed, challenged, and altered. So yes, just as everyone has said, literacy, and knowledge in general is an ever growing and always changing entity. This concept is more clear when we look at the technological development of our own time. What was once considered as a hinder to academic and scholastic affairs, the computer, is now the very machine every student, professor, and university rely on for communication, information, and education. I don't think literacy will ever stop expanding as long as technology continues to increase at such a drastic rate.
Changed lines 18-19 from:
Chelsea, I too remember this reading from Haswell's and I completely agree with all of you in your questions and comments. To fall back on Charlie's original question though, I think it all continues to develop, no matter the subject field. In addition to being open minded as you point at Chelsea, I think it would be stupid to cease any and all forms of understand and knowledge, whether you feel that a certain level as been achieved or not. It makes me think of our final paper that we had to do for lit crit. I chose really new theories of psychoanalysis and applied it to an older text, Alice Wonderland, that had been butchered by the Freudian theory. I could have simply read everything that had already been done to the text, accepted it, and moved on, but I didn't. I chose to dig deeper and expand my knowledge of psychoanalytic theory by applying new ideas that I thought made a better argument for my paper.
to:
Chelsea, I too remember this reading from Haswell's and I completely agree with all of you in your questions and comments. To fall back on Charlie's original question though, I think it all continues to develop, no matter the subject field. In addition to being open minded as you point out Chelsea, I think it would be stupid to cease any and all forms of understanding and knowledge, whether you feel that a certain level as been achieved or not. It makes me think of our final paper that we had to do for literary criticism. I chose really new theories of psychoanalysis and applied it to an older text, Alice in Wonderland, that had been butchered by the Freudian theory. I could have simply read everything that had already been done to the text, accepted it, and moved on, but I didn't. I chose to dig deeper and expand my knowledge of psychoanalytic theory by applying new ideas that I thought made a better argument for my thesis.
Changed lines 20-21 from:
I think the learning and understanding process never ends, nor why would you want it to? Those that say, "I have reached the height of understanding, there's no where else for me to go," as Wendy put it, are only hurting themselves and their research. Where would we be if no one had the urge to go any farther?
to:
I think the learning and understanding process never ends, nor why would you want it to? Those that say, "I have reached the height of understanding, there's no where else for me to go," as Wendy put it, are only hurting themselves and their research. Where would we be if no one had the urge to go any farther? There wouldn't be any new scholarship or new ways of looking at the same material.
Added line 17:
Changed lines 20-22 from:
I think the learning and understanding process never ends, nor why would you want it to? Those that say, "I have reached the height of understanding, there's no where else for me to go," as Wendy put it, are only hurting themselves and their research. Where would we be if no one had the urge to go any farther?
to:
I think the learning and understanding process never ends, nor why would you want it to? Those that say, "I have reached the height of understanding, there's no where else for me to go," as Wendy put it, are only hurting themselves and their research. Where would we be if no one had the urge to go any farther?

----
Added lines 15-19:

'''Response from Michelle'''
Chelsea, I too remember this reading from Haswell's and I completely agree with all of you in your questions and comments. To fall back on Charlie's original question though, I think it all continues to develop, no matter the subject field. In addition to being open minded as you point at Chelsea, I think it would be stupid to cease any and all forms of understand and knowledge, whether you feel that a certain level as been achieved or not. It makes me think of our final paper that we had to do for lit crit. I chose really new theories of psychoanalysis and applied it to an older text, Alice Wonderland, that had been butchered by the Freudian theory. I could have simply read everything that had already been done to the text, accepted it, and moved on, but I didn't. I chose to dig deeper and expand my knowledge of psychoanalytic theory by applying new ideas that I thought made a better argument for my paper.

I think the learning and understanding process never ends, nor why would you want it to? Those that say, "I have reached the height of understanding, there's no where else for me to go," as Wendy put it, are only hurting themselves and their research. Where would we be if no one had the urge to go any farther?
Changed lines 1-2 from:
It seems as if a tug of war between the and have when it comes to the war of the minds over literacy. wondering where and when each of the mentioned has value. For instance, the autonomous model; is there a place and time for it? Does it benefit those who desire to profess the known to those that have little or no awareness of a subject matter such as science, math, or engineering? It seem as the social setting in this instance would matter, but does it? Does literacy truly continue to develop or is there a stage in which an understanding cannot progress any further?
to:
It seems as if a tug of war between the and have when it comes to literacy. wondering where and when each of the mentioned havs value. For instance, the autonomous model; is there a place and time for it? Does it benefit those who desire to profess the known to those that have little or no awareness of a subject matter such as science, math, or engineering? It seem as the social setting in this instance would matter, but does it? Does literacy truly continue to develop or is there a stage in which an understanding cannot progress any further?
Changed lines 6-14 from:
Good question Charlie. I was wondering that, too. Phrased somewhat differently, my question was how do we determine the 'correct' authority in a given situation? I was looking at Isabella's story about going back to her brother's wedding and she made the decision to dance against the historical understandings of her former culture based on the understandings of her new culture. She obviously felt she had made the right decision to go ahead and dance because it might be her last chance, but those around her obviously felt somewhat scandalized by her behavior. Is there a right or wrong here? I'm thinking she merely introduced her more conservative society to an alternate way of thinking and then did what she had to do - left them to make of it what they would. That's really all you can do anyway and hope that you've reached someone with your ideas. In the end, I don't think I can answer your question. No matter what it is that we think we know or how educated we think we are in a given literacy, there will always be different opinions and ideas that we will need to consider and accept, reject or modify to understand how it might fit within or change our personal viewpoint. Given this, I don't think there's ever a point at which we can say definitively, I have reached the height of understanding, there's no where else for me to go.
to:
Good question Charlie. I was wondering that, too. Phrased somewhat differently, my question was how do we determine the 'correct' authority in a given situation? I was looking at Isabella's story about going back to her brother's wedding and she made the decision to dance against the historical understandings of her former culture based on the understandings of her new culture. She obviously felt she had made the right decision to go ahead and dance because it might be her last chance, but those around her obviously felt somewhat scandalized by her behavior. Is there a right or wrong here? I'm thinking she merely introduced her more conservative society to an alternate way of thinking and then did what she had to do - left them to make of it what they would. That's really all you can do anyway and hope that you've reached someone with your ideas. In the end, I don't think I can answer your question. No matter what it is that we think we know or how educated we think we are in a given literacy, there will always be different opinions and ideas that we will need to consider and accept, reject or modify to understand how it might fit within or change our personal viewpoint. Given this, I don't think there's ever a point at which we can say definitively, I have reached the height of understanding, there's no where else for me to go.

----

'''Response from Chelsea'''

I would like to address your last question. I agree with Wendy-- these are great questions, rich with discussion potential. This kind of hooks in with my little rant about the question I posted. I do not believe there is ever a point in which one can say that their understanding could not progress any further. This may be a bold statement, but I believe that (a) most likely, only a fool would ever think such a thing and/or (b) if they're dealing with something like math formulas that are never going to change (a squared plus b squared equal c squared?!?!), well then, I can understand how there may be no more understanding beyond knowing the formula. There will always be exceptions but for the most part, but almost everything in this world that is studied will inevitably change/grow/come under question/etc. In any case I think all scholar would benefit from being open minded and inviting of ideas/thoughts that challenge their own ideas/thoughts. It not for personal gratification, then at least for the strength of their work/research.

----
Changed lines 1-6 from:
It seems as if a tug of war between the and have when it comes to the war of the minds over literacy. wondering where and when each of the mentioned has value. For instance, the autonomous model; is there a place and time for it? Does it benefit those who desire to profess the known to those that have little or no awareness of a subject matter such as science, math, or engineering? It seem as the social setting in this instance would matter, but does it? Does literacy truly continue to develop or is there a stage in which an understanding cannot progress any further?
to:
It seems as if a tug of war between the and have when it comes to the war of the minds over literacy. wondering where and when each of the mentioned has value. For instance, the autonomous model; is there a place and time for it? Does it benefit those who desire to profess the known to those that have little or no awareness of a subject matter such as science, math, or engineering? It seem as the social setting in this instance would matter, but does it? Does literacy truly continue to develop or is there a stage in which an understanding cannot progress any further?

----------------------
Response from Wendy

Good question Charlie. I was wondering that, too. Phrased somewhat differently, my question was how do we determine the 'correct' authority in a given situation? I was looking at Isabella's story about going back to her brother's wedding and she made the decision to dance against the historical understandings of her former culture based on the understandings of her new culture. She obviously felt she had made the right decision to go ahead and dance because it might be her last chance, but those around her obviously felt somewhat scandalized by her behavior. Is there a right or wrong here? I'm thinking she merely introduced her more conservative society to an alternate way of thinking and then did what she had to do - left them to make of it what they would. That's really all you can do anyway and hope that you've reached someone with your ideas. In the end, I don't think I can answer your question. No matter what it is that we think we know or how educated we think we are in a given literacy, there will always be different opinions and ideas that we will need to consider and accept, reject or modify to understand how it might fit within or change our personal viewpoint. Given this, I don't think there's ever a point at which we can say definitively, I have reached the height of understanding, there's no where else for me to go.
Changed line 1 from:
It seems as if a tug of war between the and have when it comes to the war of the minds over literacy. wondering where and when each of the mentioned has value. For instance, the autonomous modes; is there a place and time for it? Does it benefit those who desire to profess the known to those that have little or no awareness of a subject matter such as science, math, or engineering? It seem as the social setting in this instance would matter, but does it? Does literacy truly continue to develop or is there a stage in which an understanding cannot progress any further?
to:
It seems as if a tug of war between the and have when it comes to the war of the minds over literacy. wondering where and when each of the mentioned has value. For instance, the autonomous model; is there a place and time for it? Does it benefit those who desire to profess the known to those that have little or no awareness of a subject matter such as science, math, or engineering? It seem as the social setting in this instance would matter, but does it? Does literacy truly continue to develop or is there a stage in which an understanding cannot progress any further?
Changed lines 1-5 from:
EMIG:

I sure
if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as three stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper as stated by emig? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between the process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs, but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process what will happen when we try to fine tune it? We'll be like a dog chasing its tail, won't we? Don't get me wrong, I think the process of writing is much more important than the product, but it seems like there's a whole lot of hair splitting going on here about things that can't be proven one way or another, doesn't it?

The product and process theories both have merit, so overall I believe that there needs to be a balance in the classroom that is goal oriented.I believe that there needs to be a desired target (Product), but the means of getting there (process) should be up to the student. If they just focus on the process the final piece might not meet the genre expectations. On the other hand, if they concentrate solely on the product, the writer is conforming to the expectations of the discipline or genge, taking the chance of becoming a mindless order taker that can't think critically. This can become a dangerous area if we're not careful! What do think about all this? Be nice.
to:
It seems as if a tug of war between the and have when it comes to the war of the minds over literacy. wondering where and when each of the mentioned has value. For instance, the autonomous modes; is there a place and time for it? Does it benefit those who desire to profess the known to those that have little or no awareness of a subject matter such as science, math, or engineering? It seem as the social setting in this instance would matter, but does it? Does literacy truly continue to develop or is there a stage in which an understanding cannot progress any further?
Changed lines 3-4 from:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as three stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper as stated by emig? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between the process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs, but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process what will happen when we try to fine tune it? We'll be like a dog chasing its tail, wont we? Don't get me wrong, I think the process of writing is much more important than the product, but it seems like there's a whole lot of hair splitting going on here about things that can't be proven one way or another, doesn't it?
to:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as three stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper as stated by emig? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between the process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs, but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process what will happen when we try to fine tune it? We'll be like a dog chasing its tail, won't we? Don't get me wrong, I think the process of writing is much more important than the product, but it seems like there's a whole lot of hair splitting going on here about things that can't be proven one way or another, doesn't it?
Changed line 5 from:
The product and process theories both have merit, so overall I believe that there needs to be a balance in the classroom that is goal oriented.I believe that there needs to be a desired target (Product), but the means of getting there (process) should be up to the student. If they just focus on the process the final piece might not meet the genre expectations. On the other hand, if they concentrate solely on the product, the writer is conforming to the expectations of the discipline or genge, taking the chance of becoming a mindless order taker that can't think critically. this can become a dangerous area if we're not careful! What do think about all this?
to:
The product and process theories both have merit, so overall I believe that there needs to be a balance in the classroom that is goal oriented.I believe that there needs to be a desired target (Product), but the means of getting there (process) should be up to the student. If they just focus on the process the final piece might not meet the genre expectations. On the other hand, if they concentrate solely on the product, the writer is conforming to the expectations of the discipline or genge, taking the chance of becoming a mindless order taker that can't think critically. This can become a dangerous area if we're not careful! What do think about all this? Be nice.
Changed lines 5-6 from:
The product and process theories both have merit, so overall I believe that there needs to be a balance in the classroom that is goal oriented.I believe that there needs to be a desired target (Product), but the means of getting there (process) should be up to the student. If they just focus on the process the final piece might not meet the genre expectations. On the other hand, if they concentrate solely on the product, the writer is conforming to the expectations of the discipline or genge, taking the chance of becoming a mindless order taker that can't think critically. this can become a dangerous area if we're not careful! I wish that someone would address the use of process writing in multiple genres, such as science, nursing and business, which seem to focus only on the product.
What do think about all this?
to:
The product and process theories both have merit, so overall I believe that there needs to be a balance in the classroom that is goal oriented.I believe that there needs to be a desired target (Product), but the means of getting there (process) should be up to the student. If they just focus on the process the final piece might not meet the genre expectations. On the other hand, if they concentrate solely on the product, the writer is conforming to the expectations of the discipline or genge, taking the chance of becoming a mindless order taker that can't think critically. this can become a dangerous area if we're not careful! What do think about all this?
Changed lines 3-6 from:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as three stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process what will happen when we try to fine tune it? We'll be like a dog chasing its tail! Don't get me wrong, I think the process of writing is much more important than the product, but it seems like there's a whole lot of hair splitting going on here about things that can't be proven one way or another, doesn't it? The product and process theories both have merit, so overall I believe that there needs to be a balance in the classroom that is goal oriented. One possible balance technique for using the product and process would be to encourage students to find their own means to a specific end. I believe that there needs to be a desired target (Product), but the means of getting (process) there should be up to the student. What do think about all this?
to:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as three stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper as stated by emig? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between the process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs, but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process what will happen when we try to fine tune it? We'll be like a dog chasing its tail, wont we? Don't get me wrong, I think the process of writing is much more important than the product, but it seems like there's a whole lot of hair splitting going on here about things that can't be proven one way or another, doesn't it?

The product and process theories both have merit, so overall I believe
that there needs to be a balance in the classroom that is goal oriented.I believe that there needs to be a desired target (Product), but the means of getting there (process) should be up to the student. If they just focus on the process the final piece might not meet the genre expectations. On the other hand, if they concentrate solely on the product, the writer is conforming to the expectations of the discipline or genge, taking the chance of becoming a mindless order taker that can't think critically. this can become a dangerous area if we're not careful! I wish that someone would address the use of process writing in multiple genres, such as science, nursing and business, which seem to focus only on the product.
What do think about all this?
Changed line 3 from:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as three stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process what will happen when we try to fine tune it? We'll be like a dog chasing its tail! Don't get me wrong, I think the process of writing is much more important than the product, but it seems like there's some hair splitting going on here, doesn't it? What do think about all this?
to:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as three stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process what will happen when we try to fine tune it? We'll be like a dog chasing its tail! Don't get me wrong, I think the process of writing is much more important than the product, but it seems like there's a whole lot of hair splitting going on here about things that can't be proven one way or another, doesn't it? The product and process theories both have merit, so overall I believe that there needs to be a balance in the classroom that is goal oriented. One possible balance technique for using the product and process would be to encourage students to find their own means to a specific end. I believe that there needs to be a desired target (Product), but the means of getting (process) there should be up to the student. What do think about all this?
Changed line 3 from:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as 3 stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process will we have the desire to remold it? What do think about all this?
to:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as three stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process what will happen when we try to fine tune it? We'll be like a dog chasing its tail! Don't get me wrong, I think the process of writing is much more important than the product, but it seems like there's some hair splitting going on here, doesn't it? What do think about all this?
Added lines 1-2:
EMIG:
Changed line 1 from:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as 3 stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that idea, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process will we have the desire to remold it? What do think about all this?
to:
I sure if I agreed with four stage process of writing, which began as 3 stage process. Obviously writing takes some sort of initiating idea that fills a niche or sparks an interest in which Helmoth coins as the or investigative process. I agree with both Cowley and Helmholtz on that first step. Where my skepticism comes into play is step two of Helmholtz model. He claims that throughout fostering the writing process, writers experience , which is a stage of thinking about the (236). First of all, if not consciously thinking about the problem, how does it evolve? Is this where our creativeness is born, between the pen and paper? If not consciously thinking about the problem, how can it be addressed? Are we conscious about our unconsciousness? If so, that make it conscious? I tend to favor second step of the model which suggests that we [ly] (237). As I planned to write this response I questioned myself as to how I was going about the early stages of developing my response. no way I could write something without at least knowing my objective (desired product) and thinking about the format (process). So for me an overlap between the two. it be safe to say that a cross sectional meeting point between process and product? If that holds a grain of truth, where is that point and how do we hone in on it? Rohman and idea of assimilation seems to unearth that concept, but at the time of publication it seemed to be somewhat premature (239). Has the assimilation theory evolved? Are the overall objectives of these theories and models mentioned in publication geared toward finding out where writing occurs within the mind, or is it that we know where it occurs but we want to hone in on understanding the process? If we begin to fully understand the process will we have the desire to remold it? What do think about all this?