Choices of Our Inqusition

Both Linda Flower and John Hayes brought up many interesting theories of the cognitive Process in their work "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing"(273). They have found that there is a tradition in looking at rhetoric an composition "process as a series of decisions and choices" (273). If one excepts that as truth, then they question how does one "govern that choice"? Thus being the very topic of their research -- why we write what we do. There is a great model of the "Structure of the Writing Process" (278).

It tries to visually layout out process of how writers do many things at once to formulate a written product. The three major cognitive processes it also points out are: planning, translating, and reviewing. It also points out that we use this and several other sub processes individually or simultaneously depending on how well our knowledge is on the subject or purpose at hand.

Then cognitive theory states we also write in hierarchy. In that we write initially as it flows out, translating our thoughts (284). It is through revision do we review our work to make sure our translation is lost by running it through other literary filters in or writing toolbox. Then, Repeat!!!!

Cognitive theory also states "writing is a goal-orientated process" (286). One first needs a purpose and an opinion. Then one needs to plan how to convey what has already been there, why it's important, and where the purpose is going. All the time being very conscious of what there goal is and that their personal slant is not infecting the research, but finding enough research to create a claim to further dialogue.

I liked the model of the writing process very much in that it tried to show how very interactive the whole writing purpose really is. However, I think that it would have been more effective if it had used line variation in order to further show the intense fluidity between processes.

The article claimed "acceptance of Pre-Writing has helped improve the teaching of composition by calling attention to planning and discovery" (275). However, lacked the acknowledgement accepting post-process theory would help further validate that we write in-turn. Meaning on a large scale to invoke the next writer to continue, compare, or tear apart our literary works to continue to grow in society. But I will give props in that they quoted Sommers idea that revision is "not the end-of-the-line repair process" but cycling the clarity of their purpose while writing when one is considered a skilled writer.

Bitchen' :)

What can I say, I think Bitch magazine is healthy dose of modern feminist opinion. I appreciated that the writers of Bitch put themselves in check by acknowledging the possible perceptions of their work and addressing them in order to be more effective communicators. Having studied and worked in feminist art modes, it is refreshing to find a modern collection of articles. Most of my research lies with the Gorilla Girls and their careers afterwards. I also like that it extends feminist opinion beyond the artist movement and takes me out of my comfort zone even more.

I think the audience addressed for Bitch is typically the 25 year old + women who are independent in thought. I will extend that this magazine is targeted to any PERSON who is tuned into the glass ceiling in business for women and other biases against/set/for women. I enjoy America's Top Model too, but I know that I was brought up with those images and I have always loved fashion. I design clothing myself and feel there is no reason that a feminist is or needs to look like a "pleasure-denying feminist crankypants"! Whatever that look like! To me the modern feminist dresses and acts according to the beat of their own drum and is very aware of underlining issues. Obviously, this short article spoke to me and my feminist filter was delighted to be engaged with a similar opinion!

From an audience invoked stand point, I think anyone who is exposed to these articles may think about how there decisions do effect the treatment of others. I wondered the same thing when I saw the trailer for "Captivity": why would anyone want to see this? If you are in tune with the horrors of the world or experienced trauma in your own life, I highly doubt movies like this are something u would waste your time seeing. It raised a great deal of questions in class as to "who" would read bitch and if they would feel comfortable. I think they are going for uncomfortable because that is really the only way to open people to change. Yes, this magazine may invoke one to put it down because it may be too uncomfortable, but I guarantee you will think about it and that shows how effective their writing is. On the other hand, you have me in there target get group of independent people who love the idea of subscribing to magazines that invoke thought and I became a subscriber before I wrote this blog!

I think that audience addressed is best for arguments or persuasion, perhaps lobbying. Audience invoked is great for getting into the minds of those who may have had a stronger opposing thoughts prior to reading the statement. I think you need a certain tone of both in order to sell your pitch from whatever the perspective subject!

Ready for Post-Process Insight?

It is all in the title for this reading by Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch's "Post-Process 'Pedagogy': A Philisophical Exercise" (Cross-Talk 97). There is reported controversy over post-process means the over throwing of process and those that support this are "largely influenced by postmodernist and anti-foundationalist perspectives" (97). Gary Olso speculates that process Theory "is problematic because it attempts to generalize the writing act" (97). Whereas, "Joseph Petraglia suggests that we should not abandon or reject process, but simply move past it...(in that) we have better question now, and the notion of process no longer counts as much of an insight" (98). However, LeeAnn staes that is a surface claim to post process theory (99).

Lee-Ann then presents Kent who sees the "post-process perspective - at least in the a paralogical sense-- means rejecting process as the ultimate explanation for writing act...(and) does not completely abandon the writing pedagogy...(but) distinguishes background knowledge--grammar systems and so forth--from the writing act...(and although they can be taught)acquisition of these skills never guarentees that a student will be able to communicate effectively...he (also) suggests that teaching writing as a system is impossible" (99-101). But it is McComiskey that fire's back and claims post-process can not occur until process has taken place because it gets the ball rolling for effective communication through writing that then sets the stage for post-process inquiry. However, the real arguement lays in that when accepting post-process it is not reject of process "but the rejection of mastery"(108).

What I like about post-process is it's idealism. That there are no absolutes in teaching writing. I would also extend that there are no absolutes in teaching in general. I also agree that students as a whole learn more effeectively when there is dialog branching concepts being taught. I also agree the interpretation of writing is the purpose of writing, which does make it continual. What is the point of writing if not to process an aspect of life or have meaningful interpretation of the readers perspective on what is written? I think post-process makes great claims for reasearch. In that research is done to put ideas out there, record observations, and stimulate new ideas when others research and reflect. I also like the post-process because I think it extends points for revision and it is exactly what we were talking about in class on Wednesday. In being that revision is not just grammar, but the clarity of concepts needs to take presidence prior to the fine tuning of grammar errors.

I here Bruffee echoing in Lee-Ann's work because the post-process accepts that it is the continuation of conversing about what is written that envokes learning. Although

Unskilled? The Differences of Students and Experienced Writers

Today we had 2 readings from Cross-Talk, they were: "The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers" by Sondra Perl and "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers" by Nancy Sommers. Perl's paper unveiled findings of the "composing process" of "unskilled" writers. She starts by saying that the composing process can be recorded through: "students written products, their composing tapes, and their responses to the interview" (19). First a code was created and then time for each coded process was documented. She concludes that the data shows that unskilled writers are aware highly aware of revision as being only proofreading grammar. This level of revision did not match their ability to write.

Sommer's brings up a hole in composition research by stating that "current models of the writing process have directed attention away from revision. She notes that with speech there is no going back, and that "writing begins at the point where speech becomes impossible" (45). With revision being the focus she concluded their is a large difference in the revision styles of Student Writers to Experienced Adult Writers. She concludes that student writers look at "the revision process as a rewording activity". However, the Experienced writer looks to revise the context first and make sure "key" points are clear and the purpose of the paper is focused throughout. They only at the end do they revise to ensure the correct grammar usage has been applied.

I found these readings to be very helpful in a variety of ways. I recognize in my early revisions as a student I use to solely focus on grammar. Now I do revise for both content and grammar simultaneously, when in a hurry. I also revise content as I write and normally rarely care about grammar in the beginning because I know I will revise my paper. However, I know I typically I write better if a read for clarity of purpose and then grammatically change the paper. SO I agree with both, but I am not sure when the transition occurred. As a soon to be tutor, I took away that talking about the context and focus is crucial to helping my tutee. Also reading this research shows me the process that I am trying to break my tutee of and helps me be more cognitively aware of the type of discourse that needs to occur to help both my writing process and that of my tutee's.

After reading these two papers one can easily draw parallels to our previous readings. Perl's notation (19) brings up a good point that the teacher is not always the audience and that is where there two studies differentiate. I think that an extension of Perl's paper one can say that peer anaysis can be just as effective in terms of revision. I think Sommer's key point of the speech being non revisable makes it key to writing for a purpose. Therefore one must talk it out to make sure the point is clear in the writers head before the writing process is truly effective. I think Bruffee would definitely agree.

Underlining Principles of Writing As a Process

Victor Villanueva's "Cross-Talk" preface give interesting insight as to the how and why this book was created. In his second preface he pinpoints changes and states technology has reinvented the classroom and therefore things must change. He also points out that "writers of color" are being more accepted and hopes that this will lead to more meaningful discourses about racism. The preface to his first edition notes that the book is for graduate level work in composition and its facilitators. He humbles his accumulation essays that "the book is comprehensive, not complete" (xiv), leaving it open for readers to go further and incorporate more knowledge than this one source. Murray's take home point was that composition teachers need to teach process, not product and that it is hard to teach different than one has been taught. His ideal classroom environment is when the teacher "not the initiator or the motivator"...and needs to "be quiet, to listen, to respond" and only be "the reader, the recipient" (5). Janet Emig challenges the traditional language process (listening, talking, reading and writing 8) and focuses more on the process of how we formulate the language process and build on that process only through interaction.
I find it interesting that writing as a process is not what I thought it was. I thought originally that the "writing process" was as it has been taught to me all along: you have a subject and you write! It's how it's always been for me. So I found it very intriguing that creating that environment, that I know all too well, is the exact way to suffocate a student's writing because the product is focus verses the process. Being in art I draw a parallel to the dilemma and as an art educator I agree that teacher need to be weary of the pot whole they can create in their lesson plans if process is not the focus of a project. The consensus was also that product format in a class keeps the student's writing stagnant, nothing more than a "passive compliance, never...really engaging-- in written discourse" (CT xiii). Which I see as a problem because I know I grow the most when I am actively challenged/engaged.
Although "Cross-Talk" contains essays verses a written guide, I think that prefaces to both "Cross-Talk" and "They Say, I Say" are similar. They both want the same outcome, for writing to be taught as a process. "Cross-talk" gives to written material to get the verbal discourse going. "They Say, I Say" transforms the discourse by giving the tools for effective written discourse.

Writing Instruction Through the Ages

"A Short History of Writing Instruction" by James A. Berlin gives a crash course on the evolution of rhetoric. In the late 1800's college was typically for the elite, women were included in the minority. The main purpose of the article was "to show that writing instruction has been a comparable scene of struggling over competing claims about the purposes of education, more specifically about the society the school ad the college should advocate and the kind of individuals they should encourage" (184). Although it was a ridiculously long quote, it does set the stage in explaining the mindset of the expansion of formal rhetoric in the collegiate level. I think that what is going on in political terms directly effected the liberal movement in writing instruction. Between international wars and minorities gaining strength and recognition, writing at the collegiate level was forced to grow. Writing has now become a very social and liberal movement.
It is the question of who and what kind of individuals they should encourage I particularly paid heed to. Shouldn't they pay attention to all? As an educator in training, I do not believe that curriculum should be closed off to those at the level. In fact I think the most conducive classrooms are those that can tap into the creativity of the individual. Then the facilitator can take all those abilities and help set a foundation where students are engaged in rhetoric which will help them outside the classroom.
This article definitely draws off previous readings for the course. The point of engaging students takes me back to Bruffee's article "Collaboration and the Conversation of Mankind". In the article Bruffee cites that conversation --or rhetoric-- will help students even after college in all parts of life, especially in the professional world. I agree because being able to articulate and question given norms is how we grow and engage in change. Strong rhetorical skills are what everyone needs. However, the collorlation to Cushman's article is also strong in the plight for more individuals taking charge in activist research. In order to create change in society one needs very strong rhetorical skills in order to persuade.
I think that Berlin shows that with us coming up on the knowledge era, we need all types of individuals to be strong advocates for growth and the key is effective rhetorical training.

They Say, I Say, & Together!

O where to begin with writing a summary for "They Say, I Say" book by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein. The book is put together like a choir practice. First one hears what has been done before, "They Say". During that one creates their own part to accompany, harmonize, or even ignore, "I Say". Then it is sorted in the practice by combining all the parts, "Tying it all together". “They Say” explains how to utilize others works by summarizing and quoting. “I Say” goes in more creative means because here are the new ideas for the next writing and they go like this: respond to the writing (yes, no, ok, but), distinguish between what they say and you say, create a devils advocate for flavor, and make sure there is a clearly stated purpose to read your writing (a.k.a. your thesis). And that was not enough for one to do, they want you to make sure your signature is figuratively on it when you tie it all together. This section goes further by helping one make sure one's opinion is not neglected by incorporating their voice to the paper. And the clincher is to incorporate a metacomentary in ensure your newly found creative opinion is not misunderstood.
Since I am obviously a conversational writer, the part of the book that spoke to me the most was the "metacomentary". I have never heard of this word before, but I think it is key to a good essay. The incorporation of metacommentary establishes exactly what the writer is trying to or not to say in order "to ward off any potential misunderstandings"(128). I think this is great because it also shows that the writer is critically thinking about what they have written and the different angles it may be read. Now, what would happen if people did so in everyday word exchanges? And coming from an artistic visual learner I found the mini comic strips educationally amusing :)
In comparison to the preface and introduction of the book, I now find "They Say, I Say" to be a fascinating book having read it all the way through! Why? Because it puts what is in my head in front of me and that, for me, makes writing easier. Although I was skeptical at first of using templates, they really helped me create my summary this time with out creating a "summary list" faux pas. Although I normally do not list during summaries, with so much information to touch upon I was glad to read that caveat and tried summarized through much a larger and creative lens. In doing so I believe I avoided the dreary summary list. Part of the reason I like the book so much is because it is user friendly. It is well organized itself and is easy to reference. Both are key, in my opinion, to a great reference book. My favorite section of the book is the Index of Templates; simply because it's the meat and potatoes of the book.

“They Say, I Say” - pg. 14 Exercise #2

September 5th, 2007 by Meg

In the preface and introduction to “They Say, I Say”: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing”. Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provide templates designed to provoke cognitive thought process in order to enhance writing skills. Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein argue that the types of writing templates they offer stretch beyond the basic grammar formats, like the 5 paragraph essay. As the authors themselves put it, “…our templates echo this classical rhetorical tradition of imitating established models”. Although some people believe stifle creativity. Graff and Birkenstein insist that these templates draw out creativity by taking out the guesswork involved in trying to establish the core foundation of format through templates. In sum, then, their view is that these templates are the gateway to more creative thought process, ergo, better writing.
I have mixed feelings. However , I tend more towards agreement. In my view, the types of templates that the authors recommend are intriguing because I have never seen anything like them. For instance, using this template has been difficult because I am not use to structuring my thoughts in this manner. In addition, I felt myself fighting my own inner skepticism that I could do better on my own, until I stopped fighting and started using the tools newly introduced through this template. Some might object, of course, on the grounds that the template told me what to write. Yet I would argue that if you read my first papers for this class one would see the omission of literary wit that seems to be gushing out in this essay. Overall, then, I believe that the template process works if you trust you have more to learn and that you can be taught new writing—an important point to make given I am still a student myself. However, I’m still not sure how to incorporate all that provoked interesting and resonating reflections in what I read with this particular template. I am sure I just need more practice!