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.