what to accomplish today

What I want to accomplish today is finishing up the rhetorical functions portion of the body, and possibly start the transition into the rhetorical appeals.

I was able to get more than I wanted to today actually. I finished a draft of the rhetorical functions, created a transition from the functions to the rhetorical appeals, and finished describing what the appeals are with my own examples.

exploratory draft

What I wanted to get accomplished today was the first few sections of the beginning of the body of my inquiry project. I shaped a paragraph introducing rhetorical operations and also was able to draft the repetition and reversal explanation/examples. I hope to finish this section later today so I can move on to another section later on. Right now, since I just focused on this small section in the beginning, I'm not really seeing the connection I need to make in the overall theory of the paper, but hopefully as I go on that will be made more clearly.

I pretty much have to re-do my annotated bib. adding my new, more relevant sources. What I did today was go through all of my sources and picked out new ways to group the new sources. Now I can form my introduction as my paper will be half on advertising rhetoric principles, and the other half will be applying those to McDonald's.

annotated bib, in progress

Heiligmann, Rodney, and Vickie Rutledge Shields. “Media Literacy, Visual Syntax, and Magazine Advertisements: Conceptualizing the Consumption of Reading by Media Literate Subjects.” Journal of Visual Literacy 25 (2005): 41-66.

This article analyzes visuals and media texts for underlying cultural and superlative beliefs. The advertisements are meant to create relationships with the reader and the initial relationship with the viewer is a power relationship, lending support to existing stereotypes and social/cultural hierarchies.

The authors reference different approaches to studying advertising, which gives me the overall picture without a biased view. The article is from Spring 2005, which I consider to be current and a significant contribution to media literacy.

The rhetoric “appeals” are rational, sensual, testimonial and worry. I can use the “appeals” in my analysis of a specific case, which will be the second half of my inquiry project. I think I will also be able to use the three meaning qualifications in advertising in my analysis: the meaning of a sign must be transferred to another (people to objects, object to object, social situation to object and feelings to objects), the connection by the viewer to product and the charged sign and the charged sign must have meaning to the viewer. These meanings got me thinking of potential cases to analyze that fit into these categories such as McDonald’s, “Think Pink” Campaign, and InspiRED. These three fall most into the social situation to object.

Morgan, Sara. “More than Pictures? An Exploration of Visualy Dominant Magazine Ads as Arguments.” Journal of Visual Literacy 25 (2005): 145-166.

Participants were asked to view eight visually dominant advertisements from magazines. There were to infer their thoughts on the product claim(s). The results found a small group of different claims about the actual product in the advertisement, but also the participants inferred multiple implications drawn from the advertisement.

This article is current, from Autumn 2005, and I believe it has authority and significant contributions to visually dominant advertisements. Sara Morgan addresses classical conditioning positives and negatives even though it is not her argument. I think this makes her credible and non-biased because it shows that she has done the research in her field to take note of a different approach than her own without taking a biased approach.

I will be able to use the advertising visual rhetoric techniques mentioned, such as rhyme and reversal, in the first half of my paper where I will analyze visual rhetoric. I also noticed Morgan and Rodney and Shields use some of the same sources, such as Mesaris.

Factness

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?
I would like to talk to my marketing and visual communications professors. They would have different takes on the subject "visual literacy," one from an advertising, business-based background and the other from an artistic view. There is an advertising firm in Elmhurst called Maddock Douglas, and I would like to set up an interview with an employee from there who works with actual advertisements and visual literacy.

What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question?
I have already started my research with books, journals and magazine articles. These are all ways to find textual factness concerning my topic. I would also like to find information on visual literacy in composition study books so I can relate my topic more tightly to the composition community.

What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)
This does involve talking to someone, but I would like to talk to Professor O'Rourke and ask her what questions she has and what she would like to gain after reading my paper on visual literacy. That way I'll have some compositionally based questions to focus on that will appeal to my audience. Something else I could do to gather informational "factness" is to conduct a survey or experiment. In my research I came across an experiment that I may be able to reference or conduct myself. A survey would allow me to gather information about how the general public views visual literacy.

a heterogeneity without hierarchy

John Trimbur's Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning addresses an important criticism of collaberate learning. The criticism is that collaberative learning supresses individual ideas and enforces conformity. I give Trimbur credit for addressing his critics with respect and care, stating the problem he will later counteract while maintaining that his critics make valid arguments. Anyway, Trimbur says that "it is through social interaction of shared activity that individuals realize their own power to take control of their situation by collaborating with other" (463). I definetly agree with him, but I see both sides to this. I feel the collaboration we students in our English class have allows us to bounce ideas off of each other, play the devil's advocate and possibly strengthen our exisiting ideas or create new ones. I have not encountered students in my group that buckle their ideas if it is not the majority consensus of the group.
However, I see the concern and fear that group talk/think can sway a student to the majority's consensus or mimic/adapt the ideas of the group and call them their own. I am sometimes concerned in my tutoring sessions that our conversations will be intimidating since the tutee is younger, she may feel that my ideas are "right", when really I'm just the same as she is; a student looking for intellectual conversation with ideas.
I thought I followed the section on normal and abnormal discourse, but I had trouble understanding the following: "[abnormal discourse] offers a way to analyze the strategic moves by which discourse communities legitimize their own conversatio by marginalizing others" (469).
I like his idea of a heterogeneity without hierarchy. In a normal, traditional classroom setting, the teacher is the main leader/power and the students are their to absorb the teacher's knowledge. In collaberative learning, the collective efforts of the participants, equal authority and participating in normal conventions of a discourse community can release creative energies and ideas.

inquiry project proposal

As an interdisciplinary communications major student, advertising and visual communication interests me because those are some classes I have taken, or am taking, that have really piqued my interest and further curiosity. I often wondered from the beginning of this English course how it relates to my major. This inquiry project is a perfect way for me to further explore this connection between visual literature and its effects on audience. I want to learn more about this topic because it is so relevant to not only this course, but currently in my marketing class we are learning about advertising, and in my visual communications course we are learning about the effects visuals/advertising has on its audience using colors. I have studied so much about written text, its importance and its power, so I wonder if written text is the most power, then commercials and advertisements would not necessarily need to use visuals. To me, it is the visuals of advertisements and commercials that provoke the most emotion, which is why there are so many billboards or ads with no to small amounts of text.

As of now, I have learned in my visual communications course that color in advertising, whether it is how a product is packaged or a commercial, evokes the most emotion from its audience. I also know from studying fashion that advertisements send more messages than meets the eye. Companies and industries are not only trying to sell a product sometimes, they may also be selling an image, concept or idealist stereotype. I have studied the fashion industry’s advertisements and its effects on audience in the scope of self-esteem and eating disorders. It is a painful reality and evidence that visual literature evokes life-changing emotions. People do more than respond emotionally to advertisements, they draw conclusions and mold their lives, or at least their perception of life.

An interesting thought and point I would like to further research is as follows: text offers the reader the opportunity to imagine visuals drawn from the actual words- visuals offers the audience to draw textual inferences from the pictures. Because of this, it is difficult to hold the advertisement or company accountable for statements its audience comes up with because it is not actually said in text, it is just inferred. So is there a way the public can have an impact on advertisements so they sell us the actual product, not a stereotype and image if no text directly states the ideal concept? Also, is it a good marketing strategy to use the tactic of selling these concepts and false perceptions of life in order to boost the industry, or is that considered unethical?

To begin my research I would like to interview my visual communications professor to get her take on the subject and gear some questions towards visual literacy’s effects on audience. I know she will have much to say because we both share a great interest in this topic. I would also like to interview my marketing professor because I believe she will have a different take on the subject than my visual communications professor since she will have a business perspective. Some sources I have found are:
1. Media Literacy: Keys to Interpreting Media Messages
2. Extending Social Comparisons: An examination of the Unintended Consequences of Idealized Advertising Images. Charles Gulas and Kim McKeage
3. Effects of Print Ad Pictures and Copy Containing Instructions to Imagine on Mental Imagery that Mediates Attitudes. Laurie Babin, Alivn Burn
4. More Than Pictures? An exploration of Visually Dominant Magazine Ads as Arguments. Sara Morgan

This text is relevant to our inquiry projects because it reminds me that audience is very important. I found this to be helpful because I need to consider my subject and the issues I may find to be important, but also what my audience may find to be important for me to discuss. I was not too sure what "do these questions and concerns differ from those of the scholoarly discourse community" meant. Is this talking about the general academic discourse we have been talking about, or the specific discourse of our subject? And if it is the latter, and I'm not an expert in the visual literacy discourse how can I know if my questions and concerns differ from those of the scholar in that discourse?

The second paragraph of the text really focused on audience and what assumptions and thoughts people may already have on your subject. You can take those assumptions, questions and concerns and try to research and address those in your paper so you appeal to your audience's concerns.

Min-Zahn Lu's Professing Multiculturalism starts off with two stories that demonstrate the power and division of "beginning/uneducated" writers versus the "experts." Both stories lead to an unfortunate reality facing mainly beginner or "non-expert" writers today: If you cannot produce an error-free composition then your ideas pretty much mean nothing. I think this is an assumption of students who may be self-conscious of their writing style that is seen in classes today. Primary education stresses grammer and structure more than anything else that I remember writing to be more of a stiff process rather than creative. I remember loving being in the advanced english classes because we did not have to "waste" our time on spelling tests and grammer quizzes, and instead we were able to put our brains to use writing creatively and academically.

Lu reflects on experiences in teaching her literature courses. She notices her students are able to speak so eloquently about "politics of stylistic decisions made by 'real' writers" (490). However, once her students start to write about such topics they become caught up in what sounds "right," meaning what can I do to write in a way that reproduces the voice of the scholars I read. I especially liked Lu's point about student writers when she says "why is it that in spite of our developing ability to acknowledge the political need and right of 'real' writers to experiment with 'style," we continue to cling to the belief that such a need and right does not belong to 'student writers'?" (491). I agree with Lu that just because a student may not be able to produce an error-free product, does not mean he or she has not earned the right to innovative style.

Since students are taught that grammar is such a basic staple of writing, if they have needed extra help mastering grammar they will feel reduced by their schoolwork because it is not recognized that "they are quite able to grasp subjects other than grammar and demonstrate their understanding of such subjects satisfactorily to themselves..." (492).
___________________________________

Lu uses first-year student examples in her first-year classes for teaching the multicultural approach. As Bartholomae said that there is no need "to import multiple cultures into the classroom via anthologies. They are there, in the classroom, ince the institution becomes willing to pay that kind of attention to student writing" (494). First Lu looks for writing errors that most of the class could point out and fix. Then she looks for styles that falls into her attempt to help the writer compromise a new position in correleation to the colliding voices (494).

I'm not finished posting, just taking a break for now ! :)

gender differences

1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your Inquiry Project:

Differences in gender writing and/or speaking tendencies. Is there a difference? Are the differences genetic or are they social pressures and stereotypes that shape male and female writing?

2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?

I have taken a writing intensive course called "The Mommy Wars." It explored mainly the debate of stay at home moms versus women in the workplace. I also took a class on psychoanalysis and feminism. These classes were very interesting to me, and although neither or them directly correlate with my topic idea, they both dealt with gender. I am interested to find if there are in fact differences in genders' writing/speaking to see if I have already fallen into the "trap" and how it happened.

3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?

From what I know about social pressures and its effects on gender, I think women may try to have the male's voice in writing or speaking because men are viewed as more powerful and authoritative. I do think this is more than just a stereotype, because if society teaches you and portrays someone as powerful or nurtuing, perhaps they would be more apt to fall into that category. I'm not sure if or how these would carry over to writing though.

4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?

I am most curious to find out if there are gender tendencies in writing/speaking, what they are and why they are there. Is it the way men and women learn differently that makes their work different? Do steretypes and social issues affect writing? I'm not sure what issues or tendencies would be looked at to be able to point out tendencies since every writer is so different. How can someone be sure they have found gender tendencies rather than differences in writing styles? How can this be tested and researched?

5. How might composition theorists and researchers approach or study this topic? Does this approach differ from those of other related disciplines (such as communication studies)?

From a composition point of view, researchers may have studied male versus female's writing looking at specific areas that signify gender tendencies. Communication studies may look at social issues and how gender tendencies affect people in the workplace, everyday life in relationships and in speakers.

6. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?

I would love to talk to some of my communication professors to see what their take on gender tendencies in communications are.

I'm not sure how I would be able to fluidly connect writing with some aspect of communication's gender differences. Should I focus on public speakers, gender tendencies in relationships...? I have no idea!

my "scene" : a reflection on royster

I had a speaker come in to an African Studies class where white people were the topic. I felt like she was using her ancestors’ oppression as ammunition to criticize white people today. Instead of listening and trying to grab bits and pieces from the speech that I could listen to maturely and academically, I instead was listening angrily and defensively, pretty much just throwing what she was saying out the window. I felt that if she was criticizing the way white people are privileged today and saying that they do not do anything to earn that privilege, she should have come up with some actual facts, statistics or studies. Instead she focused on pretty much saying that she and her kind has suffered greatly and the white people are still on top... when will they black people get their justice?

I felt so defensive because, sorry to break it to you, but it was not me, my family or friends that oppressed you. And why does everyone always focus on racial oppression? Did she talk about how whites have been enslaved and how blacks enslaved their own people? Or how about how women have been oppressed and still face challenges today? As a subject, it was difficult for me because “when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted.” These interpretations of human potential create a distraction in the discourse community, which I definitely experienced (613).

Royster spoke of the concept of "home training." It doesn't matter how smart you are (or think you are) or how much authority you have; you cannot go around "name calling", at least without being trained to respect the points of views other than your own. Simply saying your opinion in a dehumanizing and hurtful things are not appropriate and not good manners. She then suggests that we need to have specific codes of behavior to maintain honor, manners and respect. I feel, though, that there are so many ignorant people that just want to get their opinion out in the open and heard that they will not care about respect and manners, although I believe they should. Speakers/writers should research, write and talk with "Others" (people of topic) while upholding a professional demeanor and personal integrity; they must also know that the "Others" of that community will be watching and possibly judging (and perhaps rightfully so!) If that speaker wanted anyone to listen to her, she should have upheld an amount of respect and consideration. It would have been to her benefit to consider her audience so she could modify her voice to produce a productive speech.

royster

I found Jacqueline Jones Royster's essay, "When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own" to be very interesteing, especially because I could tie in a lot of what she said to my interdisciplinary communication studies. Voice, she says, is the central manifestation of subjectivity. She uses three scenes of personal stories to demand thoughtful response.

She discusses her struggles being an audience member when the topic of speech is about black people. The speakers claimed authority on the issue to contruct knowledge about Royster and "her kind." Royster notes that "when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted" (613). I think most people would feel this way. If you listened to someone talking about or criticizing anything from your ethnicity to a sport you play, I would feel annoyed if that person has not been in my shoes; I think this is what Royster was feeling/talking about. These interpretations of human potential creates a distraction in the discourse community (613). She notes though, that she does not believe interpretations are attacks to be unkind, but rather just interpretations.

She then speaks of the concept of "home training." It doesn't matter how smart you are (or think you are :) ) or how much authority you have; you cannot go around "name calling", at least without being trained to respect the points of views other than your own. Simply saying your opinion in a dehumanizing and hurtful things are not appropriate and not good manners. She then suggests that we need to have specific codes of behavior to maintain honor, manners and respect. I feel, though, that there are so many ignorant people that just want to get their opinion out in the open and heard, that they will not care about respect and manners, although I believe they should.

Speakers/writers should research, write and talk with "Others" (people of topic) while upholding a professional demeanor and personal integrity; they must also know that the "Others" of that community will be watching and possibly judging (and perhaps rightfully so!)

Scene three was interesting when Royster talks about different voices. As she explains her frustrations of her friend that said one of her voices was her true, authentic one, Royster affirms that people have many voices all of which may be authentic: "I find it necessary...not to feel compelled to choose one voice over another, not to claim one as more authentic, but rather to construct social realities that celebrate...differences" (619). I think this idea can apply to our tutoring and counteract bastard discourse. If a student, writer, or speaker can become in tuned to the fact that he/she has different voices and to celebrate/utilize them, he/she may be more inclined to try out their different, authentic voices to create an original idea or product.

Royster concludes by explaining how practice makes perfect. If we practice exchanging perspectives, negotiating meaning and creating understanding in respectable manners and good intent, it will become more natural to you. I think this article relates a lot to communication studies. These issues she talks about are necessary in all aspects of interpersonal communication, relationships in general and in businesses. Speaking with authority, yet in a good, respectable nature is pertinant. If we practice the ability to speak up and out, our nation could get much accomplished. Instead of keeping your burning questions, opinions and frustrations about taxes, education, etc. to yourself, learn to talk convincingly to authority to promote open communication!

Bizzell

Bizzel begins by examining the "old way" of teaching: "assuming students came to [teachers] with ideas and [teachers] helped them to put those ideas into words." Style, and formal properties of the "model essays" were taught. Bizzell disagrees with this and describes inner and outer-directed theorist models.

Inner-direct theorists see the discovery writing process as universal. I thought the four step model made sense to me, but was definetly not universal. The guidelines seemed too general to me and, for instance, everyone's innate capacities are not the same; everyone has different strengths, weakenesses, and some things come without thinking to people. This theory says that the structures of language and thought may be taught, and part of this is examining an audience analysis. I particularly liked the synthesis to Flower and Hayes. Bizzell takes a closer look at F&H's cognitive writing process. F&H view composing as a problem-solving activity. Although each writing task will have different contraints, the mental activity remains the same. A suggestion is given for how to help poor writers in this theory by explaining that writing takes place withing a certain community and explain the conventions within that community. I thought this was particularly helpful and relevant to tutoring. For example, if our tutor is writing in an academic community we can discuss with them that they need to relate their text to the object under study, the literature of the field and the audience while keeping the author's self-voice in mind.

The outer-directed model says that univeral principles may not be taught and that thoughts develop as the native tongue is learned. Outer-directed finds patterns of language use and reasoning that is common to all members of society. Bizzell references Collins and Gentner as they define " ' good writing' as writing that conforms to a set of rules set by some authority" (404). This immediately reminded me of the essay including bastard discourse. So is Collins and Gentner's definition the sad truth about academic writing (especially in school)? Is it not giving "good" writers enough credit?

bastard discourse

David Batholomae's inventing the university talks about student writers and how to write. Basically he says even if they do not possess the expertise to write for their professor, for example, who has much knowledge on the subject and discourse, the student needs to act like they can write for the expertise, and hence will become a good writer. This is where the title "inventing the university" comes in- the student has to invent the university by putting language together (or mimicking language) with a balance of personal history and history of a discipline. A challenge with this, Bartholomae discusses, "is a problem of power and finesse" (628). This means just because a student wants to (or is supposed to) write for their professor, they don't have the power or means to have their knowledge, know their prejudices, etc.

Teaching students to revise for their readers will better prepare them to write initially with a reader in mind (627). This can only be successful if the writer is actually capable of imagining and comforming to their readers' goals.

A problem begins to arise in learning because it becomes more focused on imitation rather than focusing on discovering learning and writing. Barth. notes that in education, students are left out of scholarly projects where they would/could act like colleagues. This is where a new kind of discourse, bastard discourse, comes in. I liked reading about this part of the essay and understanding what leads to it, because we learned about this somewhat in our discussion Friday. I think it's a sad truth of education that students learn to cope with tasks by having a "knowledge strategy." I don't think it's necessarily students just trying to get around learning to get the grade, but sometimes coping and finding ways around certain academic tasks seems to be the norm, or what is learned in one's classes.

Cognitive Process Theory

Flower and Hayes discuss cognitive proces theory. This theory has four components they explain:

• writing proces is a set of distincitive thinking processes that the writer organizes during composition.
• processes have a hierarchial embedded oranization where any process may be embedded within the process ( I didn't understand this at first but I will interpret that later in the blog)
• composing is a goal- directed, thinking process that the writer's goals guide
• the writer creates his/her own goals

In the Stage Models of Writing section, Flowers and Hayes make a connection to the Sommers article we read. They reject Murray's linear model of prewriting, writing and rewriting, while siding with Sommers' idea of revision being an ongoing, developing process. The problem with the linear, or "stage" model is the focus on the product verus the process-- this section was deja vu for me because of the Sommers article. Anyway, the authors argue that the writer needs to recognize the thinking that links planning to revision for an intellectual paper.

The cognitive process model explain three units of model: task environment, writer's long-term memory and writing processes. The units of analysis, they say, are mental processes such as generating ideas that may occur at any time.

I think the most pertinent points made were in the planning and reviewing stages of this essay. In planning, the writer builds their thoughts internally, generates ideas, organize them and set their own goals. The reviewing stage reinforces Sommers' rejection of the linear model. According to Flower and Hayes, reviewing happens in cycles; perhaps during planning and translating, and reviewing is able to interrupt and occur at any time.

I think bringing this idea of cyclical revision to our tutees may be helpful. It's okay to be putting your ideas down and then revise what you're saying as it's occurring. I think that's what the authors are trying to stress, that reviewing may come at any time the writer sees fit. Also, there is more emphasis on writing for individuals, not attempting to come up with a universal plan. In defining the rhetorical problem and setting your own goals, Flower and Hayes say that the way to do this varies from writer to writer, and you must discover what works for you-- I like this better than trying to come up with a universal concept of writing process.

Basically I believe that F&H and Barthomomae both come to the conclusion that writing is a process, not product. They both place invention outside the actual writing. Bartholomae thinks that exterior influences help the writer dictate what to say and that “discovery of ideas” happens before writing itself; F&H think successful writers are those who develop their own goals for writing.

Ede and Lunsford take a look into addressing the audience in writing. They look upon Mitchell and Taylor who emphasize the audience addressed model. The audience addressed "emphasize the concrete reality of the writer's audience; they also share the assumption that knowledge of this audience's attitudes, beliefs and expectations is not only possible...but essential" (78). I was confused when the article quotes Pfister and Petrik saying students should "construct in their imagination an audience that is as nearly a replica as is possible of those many readers who actually exist in the world of reality" (79). Are they saying you should fictionalize your audience to be everyone who exists, thus making your audience broad and general?

An invoked audience find the audience of a written discourse to be the contruction of the writer (a created fiction) to be important. Supporters of an invoked audience argue that writers can't know the reality the same way that speakers do. Therefore, the main task of the writer is to use the semantic/syntactic language resources of language to give the reader cues to help define the role the writer wants the reader to possess.

Ede and Lunsford then critique both ways to look at audience, and after doing so wonder if there is an alternative to these incomplete conceptions of the role of audience in writing. They then suggest that the writer must establish the range of potential roles their audience may play (89). Overall, the audience addressed focuses on the reader while the audience invoked focuses on the writer. To conclude, to write for an audience means to balance the creativity of the writer in conjunction with the creativity of the reader. You must keep in mind the wide range of potential reader roles of invoked and addressed audiences.

I'm not quite sure my opinion on this article because I feel like I don't fully understand it. I'm going to try to read it again more carefully to get a better grip on it, but for now I'm not too certain of how the article suggests to write for an audience in action.

Spoken vs. Script and their Audience

Walter Ong explains how writing is different than speaking in considering one's audience. In writing, there is no definite "audience" and therefore the writer's "audience" is in time or space, but for the speaker the audience is literally in front of him/her. Ong goes on to talk about successful writers, and if the writer is successful "it is generally because he can fictionalize in his imagination an audience he has learned to know not from daily life but from earlier writers" (59). What he means is, as a writer you cannot imagine your readers as individuals because each individual is so diverse. You may, however, call upon the audience of the text you are respondind to and use that author's audience.

A writer may fictionalize their readers in two ways, says Ong. First, the writer has to imagine an audience put into some sort of role and then the audience must "correspondingly fictionalize itself" (60). I am sort of unclear as to what Ong means when he says that the audience must "fictionalize itself." Ong kind of lost me in his extended examples of Hemingway's audience and using his audience, etc.

Ong concludes by reflecting on writing, speech and communication. Direct communication, as in talking, is impossible in writing. He thinks this makes writing actually more interesting, but less noble than speech. I would tend to disagree that writing is less noble and that "it is hard to bare your soul in any literary genre" (75). I find that many authors use writing as their best, most descriptive means of bearing one's soul. In speech, you don't have time to revise what you say. Personally, I think both speech and writing can be equally meaningful, and a lot of times I use letters or poems to attempt to articulate my thoughts and passions when I cannot find the exact spoken words-- or sometimes situations are better left unspoken and perhaps sung about. I think Ong's article was interesting and I look forward to class to better explain it for me. However, I still stand my ground the speech and script can be equally as "noble."

Post-process composition theories suggest that prewriting, writing and rewriting are no longer adequate in the teacthing and explanation of writing, says Breusch. She argues that post-process "scholarship is shortchanged by the continued emphasis on process in that the broader implications of post-process thoery have very little to do with pricess "(98). If we think about writing as an interpretative activity, we must also keep in mind that post-process perspective rejects process as an explanation of writing and as a method of teaching writing.

Breusch then touches on Kent who distinguishes actually writing from knowledge of grammar. Kent does not blow off grammar and think it is unimportant, but rather "he suggests that these skills do not in themselves comprise the writing act and that we cannot reduce te writing act to a system that can then be taught" (100). Teaching writing as a process as Murray stressed (prewriting, writing, revision), Kent argues reduces the act of writing which should be a discovery process. Murray and Kent obviously differ because Murray says you can teach writing as the process and Kent completely rejects that, because he says writing cannot be taught as a process.

Since I'm a communications major I found it interesting that Kent said we should "stop talking about writing and reading as processes and start talking about these activities as determinate social acts" (101). So pretty much communication is the product of internal thoughts . From this proposal, Kent discusses how this would actually work in a classroom. The writing process, he says, should involve the teacher working together with the student where there is the potential for them to learn from each other. Kent's model requires two-way communication that includes active participation from teacher and student. This applies to what we're doing in peer tutoring. We work together in conversation in attempts to form a reciprocal relationship that we both benefit from. We'll see if it works in the end!

Post-process theory looks as writing as an activity rather than a "thing." This shift, Kent describes, is explained by the following: "writing is public, writing is interpretive; and writing is situated (110). Writing in public means that we are writing to an audience and therefore you must consider your audience when writing. Next, what we know is shaped by interpretations so writing becomes an activity that requires an "understanding of context, interaction with others, and our attempts to communicate messages" (115). Finally, writing is led by the situation, not by the rules of process.

Finally the end of the essays suggests that teachers need to be more willing to discuss, listen and more conscientious to meet their students' educational needs. I think this is what we're trying to move towards in our peer tutoring, and in my upper-level English classes I notice this is how professors are attempting to teach. Other professors in writing papers in science, for example, focus more on structural/grammatical issues like the unskilled writers aim at.

The Possibility of Revision on all Levels

Perl's article is a summary of unskilled writers' case studies. The subjects were to compose outloud to externalize their thought process, and then go through open-ended interviews on their perception and memories of writing. A code was developed to copmpose different levels/variations of talking, writing, reading or a combination. These intricate, scary looking codes that look like nonsense actually record things such as the amount of time in prewriting, strategies, time spent per sentence, and time between sentences. This showed how students wrote, not why.
Miscue's writing process says that reading is psycholinguist. The behavior of oral reader as interaction between language and though was examined in the Tony case. Tony's data showed consistent trends in his writing including editing, pauses and repitition. I wondered if the author should have incorporated more than one test subject because the lone Tony case may be too small a sample for a convincing argument. I'm sure other subjects of unskilled writers would be similar though. Anyway, Tony would voice complete sentences when he only wrote partial sentences. He didn't see what was missing from the text.
All of the students showed prewriting, writing and edition in sequential pattern that were recognizable. The end of the article gave advice for teachers.

The Sommers article looked at revising for skilled students and experienced writers. The current wrting models are moving away from revision and we see a linear trend with the students. The linear model is first inner speech, then meaning of words and finally put in words, leaving out revision. This differs from the Murray model of writing as a process: prewriting, writing, REVISION. The revision is a separate stage in the linear model. The case of 20 freshman showed revisions mainly in deletion, subtraction, addition and reordering. The freshman didn't use the word "revision" because that's what teachers said. They opted for "do over, reviewing, redoing, markkng out, slashing." A problem and limitation on these students was in writing the introduction and thesis first, it restricts development and possible change in the paper.
Experienced writers found form and shape of an argument in revising which is a constant process. Considering the potential reader also helps shape revision. Unlike the students whose revisions were mainly on sentence structure, the experienced writers made changes on all levels and is non-linear. The experienced writers is more of a seed than a line, first considering what to say, then structuring the argument beneath the surface.
The experienced writers way of revising is more mature because it takes more time. I think student writers focus on sentence structure rather than writing two drafts because new drafting and limitless revisions is time consuming and thought provoking. In the non-linear model you may start with one thesis and end up with a completely changed focus, and that's okay! It may be better, I think, because that means you have put real thought into a subject,enough to change your mind and therefore write a more convincing paper. I wonder if Murray's thoughts on revision would be mostly linear, like the students, or "seed-like"?

Discovering Writing

Murray's article was focusing on teaching writing as a process, not a product. Learning composition skills will be more useful to the student rather than focusing on doing whatever it takes to get through the assigned paper. This process, Murray argues, is a "process of discovery through language...of exploration of what we know and what we feel about what we know through language..." (4). Murray goes on to explain the writing process has three stages: prewriting, writing, and rewriting. To teach this process is not by verbally explaining it, but rather by putting it in action. Teachers must be able to be quiet, listen and respond for this process to flourish. Teachers much also have respect for the student as a person, not only caring about his/her end product.
Emig talks about writing in the organic and functional sense because writing involves the "fullest possible functioning of the brain, which entails active participation in the process of both the left and the right hemispheres" (11). The right hemisphere contributes to writing with emotions and intuition. Emig's essay shows the connection between certain learning styles and attributes of writing.
It was interesting to read these essays because it puts more depth to something we already know: writing is important. These essays showed me how writing is uniquely valuable for learning. To me it seems strange all the topics that people study and write essays on in order to be able to put their ideas to use and teach them-- I wonder what would happen if nobody studied composition and students just wrote-- would the product be less meaningful and dull?

" A Short History of Writing Instruction" was actually pretty long...

World War II had an effect on all areas of the United States, including education. A "life adjustment" stance became regularly known in schools from the "Education for All American Youth" report (1944). Life adjustment sounds pretty intense, so what does that even mean? As Kantor puts it, "Personal and social adjustment became the great concern of post war education," providing " a new secuirty for those whose lives had been disrupted" (201). This idea was designed to assist students in their outside of school encounters. The report "unfortunately" emphasized "functional experiences in the areas of practical arts, home and family, health and physical fitness" (201-202). So like many grammer through college students may inquire and whine about having a physical fitness requirement, especially for no grade, we have the Education for All American Youth report to blame...kind of! I wonder what "practical arts" entails and wished they would have elaborated on it because the author says "unfortunately," so I would like to understand why that was a bad thing to focus on.

Life adjustment was more focused on secondary schooling, while communications courses became more influential and popular in late high school and college. What were communication courses like, I wondered, because I major in it: "the communication course was a combination of writing, reading, speaking, and listening activities" (202). To me, this is a basic understanding of the communication field today, but I also have business classes and art classes, to name a few. The war had an effect of the popularity of these courses because only after the army adopted it in its officer training programs during the war did it become an influential component of education. Communication courses changed during this time since the forties and fifties that were mostly conservative, "offering a current-traditional approach that presented communications in the service of the democratic ideals...challenged from abroad" (202).

Changes in writing in secondary schools include leads to the use of expressive and creative writing, with a renewed composition peaking its interest. The composition portion was motivated largely by the high numbers of veterans attending college.

An important feature about the 50's was that college professors insisted "that the best way to teach composition is though reading literature and writing about it"(203). What I found interesting was asking "why?" to the previous quotation, only to find out that "this was in large part a result of a sense of professional identity...following the war"(203). So did teaching literature make teachers feel confident? Why was this there main focus on the path to personal identity and how much did the war really take a teacher's identity away? Can't a teacher always learn, teach and study for themselves no matter where they are?

Anyway lit was the focus of writing classes even, because if you could read the texts it would stimulate you to write. A social issue brought up is that because of this, the teachers were possibly more served professionally over the students and their educational needs. I didn't understand why, and how students wouldn't also be helped by learning lit and turning that into writing...?

Can Tutors Use these Moves in Conversation...WHO CARES?!

At first I had a difficult time figuring out how these templates could be used in our tutoring. I could have just skimmed the book, summarized it, and spit something not useful to me out. However, I want to avoid any awkwardness that may arise between me being a first time tutor and my freshman tutee. So in order for me to engage in meaningful conversation to make the rookie not dread seeing me for an hour each week, I decided I could use certain templates and turn them into questions.
From the section on They Say templates (21), I decided I could first prompt the tutee by asking what they say in the paper. Easy enough , right? Well some students may get caught up in sounding smart that they actually lose sight of what they're actually writing about. I know I was guilty of this my freshman year. I can use the standard views templates in question form by saying "people assume that....", do you agree or disagree? Why? Or "my whole life I heard it said...", so why do you say differently? (21). Going beyond this I would like my tutee to critically think, so I would use a something implied template by possibly saying "although it's not said directly, what do you think the author assumes?" This way maybe they can come up with a new idea that was waiting to come out of their brain and into their brilliant papers. If a debate is encountered, a tutor may ask what the controversial issue is and one point of view from each side, then your view.
Anytime a quotation is found in a paper the tutor should see a big red flag! Each quotation should be sandwiched (43) and EXPLAINED!! So if you see a quote chilling by itself prompt the tutee to tell you some more information to go before and after it.
If your tutee is disagreeing with an author make sure to talk about why she thinks X is mistaken and what X overlooks (55). Consequently if your tutee blindly agrees talk about what she agrees with, why, and what experiences has she had that possibly connects to this?
I think a very important "move" in the tutoring conversation will be for the tutor to be the naysayer, or to challenge the author to be the naysayer against their argument. This definetly promotes critical thinking, and while you're doing this ask who cares and so what?? Talk about why X matters so much or why ultimately ______ is at stake. These are all important templates that may be used in conversation if you change the template around into a question.
If your tutee is too academic and you don't understand it, talk to them about it. Make them make you understand it and let them know that mixing academic writing with colloquial talk aint always so bad.
Finally you can ask them, "in other words, what's your point?" Make them explain their intention for writing and possibly put it in another way (129).
So what, you're thinking as you're bored out of your mind, those of you who actually took the time to read this?? Hopefully you will care and these suggestions helped you in some way to avoid an awkward encounter and dull moments with you and your tutee.

Exercise 2, Page 14: They Say, I say

The introduction to "They Say/I Say" breaks down how to use templates in academic writing and also why to use them. From this introduction I came to the understanding that templates help unsure writers learn the basics of academic writing while integrating their own, creative flair. Graff and Birkenstein talk about activities such as "cooking, playing the piano, shooting a basketball" (1) and how you cannot master any of these tasks without learning the basic skills behind them. The same applies with writing, Graff and Birkenstein argue.
Working on the templates lets you learn how to engage in critical thinking needed at the college level, used everyday in public and eventually in your career or vocational choice. Writers need to learn how to express themselves in organized ways in order to articulate their thoughts, summaries and responses clearly to their audience. A new writer may do this with the "they say/I say" template where you learn to express your ideas (I say) while responding to an author, critic, group, etc (they say). This promotes academic conversation and teaches you how to incorporate the voices of others into your text. Every paper needs logic, support and consistency. Sounds boring, right? Wrongo. Martin Luther King Junior's "Letter From Birmingham Jail"is an intersting, influential letter structed around a pattern of summary and response. Clearly structure can still mean creative and innovative!
The ways of responding template is a way to avoid yes or no responses that are boring, lame and unconvincing. Templates also help you intergrate quotations and explain them in your own words (9). Overall, Graff and Birkenstein say that templates will help your creativity, not stifle it. Everyone, including Shakespeare and jazz musicians, have to learn basics. Once you learn them use imagination with the form to create creativity!
I chose not to use the template provided because I have my own system to summarize. When I read I write down words or sentences I feel are important. Then I go back, read my notes and comment on them with possible questions or my reaction. Then I form my response. I don't feel my way is above the template process, it's just that I'm pretty set in my ways for now. I was pretty iffy about the template process until I fully read the introduction and the authors convinced me that learning the basics does not mean a cookie-cutter paper with no creativity. I think this is a good approach for students who feel lost or overwhelmed with their writing.