See the Blackboard Course Documents page for final portfolio guidelines.
Happy Holidays!
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Exploratory draft workshop for the seminar paper
You are engaged in an Inquiry Project that proceeds through a series of steps designed to bring you to your own idea, a logical idea founded on sound evidence (your sources), and presented convincingly. You have located a number of sources and drafted an annotated list of sources in order to engage with the ideas of others. The next crucial step is to identify and discuss your idea (or exploratory focus) and explain how your sources have led you to understand it. It is important that you primarily use your own words to do this, rather than relying too heavily on quotations from your sources. Your exploratory focus represents your unique perspective on the topic—your own well-informed point of view, based on your reading of multiple sources.
Exploratory Draft Assignment
Today, in class, please sketch out the overall argument of your entire seminar paper. You may use your annotated bibliography, notes, and reading responses in writing this draft, but please do not refer to the sources themselves. During this class period, write a spontaneous draft of the main points that you need to make in order to support your thesis or seminar paper focus (complete sentences and paragraphs, please--not an outline). This task demands that you understand and synthesize your ideas about your source material, formulate an exploratory focus (or thesis) for your paper, and discuss it without lengthy quotations and paraphrases. Please write a one- or two-sentence statement of your focus (or thesis) at the top of your draft.
You will have the entire 60-minute period to write this draft, and you should use all the time allotted for this task. At the end of class, print out two copies—give me one copy and keep one copy for yourself. You may use this draft to plan major sections of the seminar paper to write for the next two class meetings.
Assignment for Wednesday (11/21) and Monday (11/26): Using your exploratory draft as a guide, draft a section of your seminar paper. Bring the current version of your draft to class.
Exploratory Draft Assignment
Today, in class, please sketch out the overall argument of your entire seminar paper. You may use your annotated bibliography, notes, and reading responses in writing this draft, but please do not refer to the sources themselves. During this class period, write a spontaneous draft of the main points that you need to make in order to support your thesis or seminar paper focus (complete sentences and paragraphs, please--not an outline). This task demands that you understand and synthesize your ideas about your source material, formulate an exploratory focus (or thesis) for your paper, and discuss it without lengthy quotations and paraphrases. Please write a one- or two-sentence statement of your focus (or thesis) at the top of your draft.
You will have the entire 60-minute period to write this draft, and you should use all the time allotted for this task. At the end of class, print out two copies—give me one copy and keep one copy for yourself. You may use this draft to plan major sections of the seminar paper to write for the next two class meetings.
Assignment for Wednesday (11/21) and Monday (11/26): Using your exploratory draft as a guide, draft a section of your seminar paper. Bring the current version of your draft to class.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
No Class Meeting Friday, November 16
Reminder: I will not meet with you on Friday, November 16 due to a professional obligation.
By Monday, you should be nearing completion of your research reading and note-taking--although, of course, your inquiry extends throughout the research and writing process. So, keep investigating your topic through primary and secondary research, and revise your inquiry contract and/or annotated bibliography in light of your emerging understanding of your topic.
Next week, please be prepared to move from the research phase to planning and drafting the seminar paper.
See you on Monday!
By Monday, you should be nearing completion of your research reading and note-taking--although, of course, your inquiry extends throughout the research and writing process. So, keep investigating your topic through primary and secondary research, and revise your inquiry contract and/or annotated bibliography in light of your emerging understanding of your topic.
Next week, please be prepared to move from the research phase to planning and drafting the seminar paper.
See you on Monday!
Monday, November 5, 2007
During the next two weeks, you will be responsible for independent reading and research for your final paper. On Wednesday, November 14, you will hand in a draft of your annotated bibliography. A revised version of your annotated bibliography will be included with your final research portfolio, which is worth 50% of your course grade.
Preparing your Annotated Bibliography
Your annotated bibliography is an opportunity to show off your current understanding of your topic and the research you have done so far. In addition, your annotated bibliography allows you to do some of the work of summarizing and synthesizing your sources before you begin writing a more analytical essay. As you prepare your bibliography, then, you will be inventing material and structures that you might use in your seminar paper.
Elements of the Bibliography
Your bibliography should have a title and a 1-2 paragraph introduction, which should give a bit of background on how your topic is usually viewed and studied, as well as an explanation of how the entries have been classified into at least two categories. Your draft should include a minimum of five relevant sources on your topic.
Each category should have its own heading and entries in alphabetical order. Each entry should consist of the source information in MLA format, followed by an annotation of the source. The annotation should comment on the content of the source as well as its significance to the topic and your research. You may want to review Chapter 2 of They Say, I Say on the “art” of writing strategic summaries, rather than the typical list summary. That is, summarize in terms of the specific issue that your argument focuses on.
Sample entry in MLA format
Bright, Sidney. “Ethical Behavior in Group Work in a College Composition Course: The Devil Never Took the Hindmost.” Journal of Collegiate Ethics 14 (1999): 12-27.
Bright found that her students showed advanced ethical development in social behavior in small groups in class. However, when these same students wrote essays, their ethical development did not appear as advanced. This research is significant because it shows how different contexts shape ethical behavior.
**************************************************************************************
Practice writing bibliographic entries and strategic summaries of at least two sources for your inquiry project. Please post your citations and annotations to your blog for review and response.
Wednesday: Workshop on annotated bibliography: MLA format
Preparing your Annotated Bibliography
Your annotated bibliography is an opportunity to show off your current understanding of your topic and the research you have done so far. In addition, your annotated bibliography allows you to do some of the work of summarizing and synthesizing your sources before you begin writing a more analytical essay. As you prepare your bibliography, then, you will be inventing material and structures that you might use in your seminar paper.
Elements of the Bibliography
Your bibliography should have a title and a 1-2 paragraph introduction, which should give a bit of background on how your topic is usually viewed and studied, as well as an explanation of how the entries have been classified into at least two categories. Your draft should include a minimum of five relevant sources on your topic.
Each category should have its own heading and entries in alphabetical order. Each entry should consist of the source information in MLA format, followed by an annotation of the source. The annotation should comment on the content of the source as well as its significance to the topic and your research. You may want to review Chapter 2 of They Say, I Say on the “art” of writing strategic summaries, rather than the typical list summary. That is, summarize in terms of the specific issue that your argument focuses on.
Sample entry in MLA format
Bright, Sidney. “Ethical Behavior in Group Work in a College Composition Course: The Devil Never Took the Hindmost.” Journal of Collegiate Ethics 14 (1999): 12-27.
Bright found that her students showed advanced ethical development in social behavior in small groups in class. However, when these same students wrote essays, their ethical development did not appear as advanced. This research is significant because it shows how different contexts shape ethical behavior.
**************************************************************************************
Practice writing bibliographic entries and strategic summaries of at least two sources for your inquiry project. Please post your citations and annotations to your blog for review and response.
Wednesday: Workshop on annotated bibliography: MLA format
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Developing New Knowledge: "Factness"
In his book, Inquiry and Genre, David Jolliffe proposes three criteria for acquiring new knowledge, which is the goal of the inquiry process. You can use these three criteria--"factness," comprehensiveness, and "surprise value"--to guide your search.
Today, we'll focus on his first criteria, factness, or the degree to which the material you learn can stand up to the scrutiny of careful questioning. We usually think of "facts" as information that can be verified by observation or experimentation. In other words, we know facts. However, "factness" can also refer to what other people think, feel, and believe about issues concerning your subject.
Guidelines for today's in-class writing:
Reread your inquiry contract proposal, noting any changes you want to make in its three sections (why the subject is important to you, what you know about it already, and what questions you need to ask about it). Then, respond to the following questions on your blog:
This week, schedule an interview with someone who can provide you with information about your inquiry project topic. See The Free Management Library for guidelines on conducting interviews.
Today, we'll focus on his first criteria, factness, or the degree to which the material you learn can stand up to the scrutiny of careful questioning. We usually think of "facts" as information that can be verified by observation or experimentation. In other words, we know facts. However, "factness" can also refer to what other people think, feel, and believe about issues concerning your subject.
Guidelines for today's in-class writing:
Reread your inquiry contract proposal, noting any changes you want to make in its three sections (why the subject is important to you, what you know about it already, and what questions you need to ask about it). Then, respond to the following questions on your blog:
Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?
What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question?
What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)
This week, schedule an interview with someone who can provide you with information about your inquiry project topic. See The Free Management Library for guidelines on conducting interviews.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Revisiting the Inquiry Contract
Part I: Reflecting on your own writing
In his book, Inquiry and Genre, David Jolliffe proposes the following questions to consider when engaging in scholarly inquiry. Reread your inquiry contract, then spend the first 20 minutes of class time writing in response to the following prompts:
Part II: Reading each other’s writing
Exchange your Inquiry Contract with at least two other students in class and read one another’s revised drafts. Discuss why the questions you’ve posed are important and what you’ve learned so far. What do you know now that you didn’t know before you began your research? What do you still need to find out in order to answer the questions you’ve posed?
Wednesday's Assignment:
Read one selection from Cross-Talk: either Trimbur (p. 461) or another article from Cross-Talk in Composition related to your research topic. Post to your blog a summary and response.
The revised version of the Inquiry Contract will be due Monday, November 5.
In his book, Inquiry and Genre, David Jolliffe proposes the following questions to consider when engaging in scholarly inquiry. Reread your inquiry contract, then spend the first 20 minutes of class time writing in response to the following prompts:
When the general public considers the subject I’m working with, what are the issues, questions or concerns that they think are important to discuss? Do these questions and concerns differ from those of the scholarly discourse community?
In discussions of my subject, what are some of the status quo assumptions that appear to go unsaid but nonetheless seem almost universally believed? For example, if I am exploring how writing should be taught in high school, what do most people tend to believe about the kinds and amount of writing that high school students should do? What do people believe writing teachers should do to prepare students for the world beyond high school? How do people believe that teachers should respond to students’ writing?
In texts that people produce about my subject, what kinds of outcomes or results do they expect the texts to have with readers? Do writers about my subject usually expect a reader simply to consider their ideas, to believe in them strongly, to take some specific action? What?
Part II: Reading each other’s writing
Exchange your Inquiry Contract with at least two other students in class and read one another’s revised drafts. Discuss why the questions you’ve posed are important and what you’ve learned so far. What do you know now that you didn’t know before you began your research? What do you still need to find out in order to answer the questions you’ve posed?
Wednesday's Assignment:
Read one selection from Cross-Talk: either Trimbur (p. 461) or another article from Cross-Talk in Composition related to your research topic. Post to your blog a summary and response.
The revised version of the Inquiry Contract will be due Monday, November 5.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Inquiry Contracts due Monday
On Monday, you will review and respond to each others' drafts of the Inquiry Contract. Please bring two hard copies of your draft to class: one for peer review, and one to hand in to the instructor. (I encourage you to save a copy to a disk, USB, or some other media that you can access for in-class revising.)
As described in the Inquiry Project Description (on the Blackboard Course Documents page), the Inquiry Contract is a one-page (single-spaced) project proposal. There are three parts:
1. In the first section, explain why are you interested in this topic: What do you want to know? What motivates you to learn more about this topic?
2. In the second section, describe at least two things you already think, feel, or know about this topic.
3. In the third section, raise two questions that you could reasonably address in a seminar paper on your topic.
It would be helpful to attach a list of the sources you plan to consult in the course of the research. This may include secondary sources (such as books and articles), as well as first-hand sources (interviews, observations, and personal experience).
Drafts of inquiry contracts from last spring's English 401 students may be found on the Course Blackboard (Discussion Board--> Inquiry Project Topics and Questions).
As I announced Friday in class, there is no common reading assignment for Monday's class meeting. In lieu of course readings, I encourage you to continue reading and note-taking on the sources you've found so far on your Inquiry Project topic.
Peer tutor groups will meet on *Friday* with Ian Turner for focused group discussions of the practicum experience.
As described in the Inquiry Project Description (on the Blackboard Course Documents page), the Inquiry Contract is a one-page (single-spaced) project proposal. There are three parts:
1. In the first section, explain why are you interested in this topic: What do you want to know? What motivates you to learn more about this topic?
2. In the second section, describe at least two things you already think, feel, or know about this topic.
3. In the third section, raise two questions that you could reasonably address in a seminar paper on your topic.
It would be helpful to attach a list of the sources you plan to consult in the course of the research. This may include secondary sources (such as books and articles), as well as first-hand sources (interviews, observations, and personal experience).
Drafts of inquiry contracts from last spring's English 401 students may be found on the Course Blackboard (Discussion Board--> Inquiry Project Topics and Questions).
As I announced Friday in class, there is no common reading assignment for Monday's class meeting. In lieu of course readings, I encourage you to continue reading and note-taking on the sources you've found so far on your Inquiry Project topic.
Peer tutor groups will meet on *Friday* with Ian Turner for focused group discussions of the practicum experience.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Exploring your Inquiry Project Topic
If you are feeling confident in your choice of a particular topic for your Inquiry Project, you may only need to write about that topic. If you are unsure, explore two or three topics by responding to the following questions on your personal blog:
Part I: Exploration
1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your Inquiry Project.
2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?
3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?
4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?
6. 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)?
7. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?
Part II: Focusing
Write an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.
Part I: Exploration
1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your Inquiry Project.
2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?
3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?
4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?
6. 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)?
7. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?
Part II: Focusing
Write an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Blog posting for Lu's "Professing Multiculturalism" POSTPONED until Friday
The blog posting for Monday's assigned reading (Min-Zhao Lu's "Professing Multiculturalism") will be postponed until Friday, October 26. (During the first half of Friday's class, we will discuss the article's implications for peer tutors, then you will meet with your peer tutoring conference group.)
I've discussed with some of you topics for the Inquiry Project. During Monday's class meeting, we will share potential topics and discuss requirements for the project. On Wednesday, October 24, we'll meet at the library instruction room to begin library research on your proposed Inquiry Project topic.
To prepare for tomorrow's class, please read the Inquiry Project Description, which is posted on the Course Documents page of the English 401 Blackboard. You may post your initial topic ideas as comments to this page. During the second half of Monday's class meeting, you'll do some in-class writing and invention to discover what you already know about your topic as well as what you want to discover.
See you Monday morning. Please email me with questions or concerns at bridgeto@elmhurst.edu.
I've discussed with some of you topics for the Inquiry Project. During Monday's class meeting, we will share potential topics and discuss requirements for the project. On Wednesday, October 24, we'll meet at the library instruction room to begin library research on your proposed Inquiry Project topic.
To prepare for tomorrow's class, please read the Inquiry Project Description, which is posted on the Course Documents page of the English 401 Blackboard. You may post your initial topic ideas as comments to this page. During the second half of Monday's class meeting, you'll do some in-class writing and invention to discover what you already know about your topic as well as what you want to discover.
See you Monday morning. Please email me with questions or concerns at bridgeto@elmhurst.edu.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Peer Tutoring Group Meetings
In advance of Friday's class meeting, I urge you to visit your tutoring client's
personal blog, which are linked to the main ENG106 course blog at:
http://106research.blogspot.com/
106 students are blogging their research topics and questions as they evolve through
processes of invention (e.g., asking questions, refining topics, defining what they already know/want to know). Any collaborative feedback and/or planning advice you can offer will be appreciated by your tutoring clients!
(For those blogs that aren't linked to students' names: "Haunted English" is Clark's blog, "Gazing Forth" is Anthony's, and "Stream of Consciousness" is Juliet's.)
On Friday, I'll ask you to connect your practicum experience (which may include reading and/or posting to your client's blog) to this week's readings. You might, for example, analyze your practicum experience in terms of any of the following topics or issues:
--silence and voice
--inner-directed and outer-directed theories of writing
--cognitive processes vs. familiarity with the "conventions" of academic discourse
communities
--notions of "subjectivity" and "difference" (however you define them. . .)
personal blog, which are linked to the main ENG106 course blog at:
http://106research.blogspot.com/
106 students are blogging their research topics and questions as they evolve through
processes of invention (e.g., asking questions, refining topics, defining what they already know/want to know). Any collaborative feedback and/or planning advice you can offer will be appreciated by your tutoring clients!
(For those blogs that aren't linked to students' names: "Haunted English" is Clark's blog, "Gazing Forth" is Anthony's, and "Stream of Consciousness" is Juliet's.)
On Friday, I'll ask you to connect your practicum experience (which may include reading and/or posting to your client's blog) to this week's readings. You might, for example, analyze your practicum experience in terms of any of the following topics or issues:
--silence and voice
--inner-directed and outer-directed theories of writing
--cognitive processes vs. familiarity with the "conventions" of academic discourse
communities
--notions of "subjectivity" and "difference" (however you define them. . .)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own
Jacqueline Jones Royster reflects on the experience of having one's "subjectivity" denied or disrespected in academic culture. What do her experiences reveal about voice, difference, and what may be gained and/or lost through membership in the "academic discourse community"?
Today, we'll explore this question through the kaleidoscopic lens of our collective experiences. I invite you to compose a "scene" from your own experience, drawing on Royster's article for inspiration. You might tell a story about a "cross-boundary exchange" that you witnessed or in which you participated. You might offer your personal testimony as 'subject' within an academic discourse community. I leave this writing prompt open to invention and discovery.
I encourage you to reflect on experiences that have been a source of dissonance, experiences that moved you out of your comfort zone into what Mary Louise Pratt calls contact zones--"areas of engagement that in all likelihood will remain contentious" (Royster 615).
Write for about 25 minutes. You may choose whether or not to post this writing to your blog. At 9:45, I'll ask volunteers to tell their stories so that we can hear them, in order to "include voicing as a phenomenon that is constructed and expressed visually and orally, and as a phenomenon that has import also in being a thing heard, perceived, and constructed" (Royster 612).
Today, we'll explore this question through the kaleidoscopic lens of our collective experiences. I invite you to compose a "scene" from your own experience, drawing on Royster's article for inspiration. You might tell a story about a "cross-boundary exchange" that you witnessed or in which you participated. You might offer your personal testimony as 'subject' within an academic discourse community. I leave this writing prompt open to invention and discovery.
I encourage you to reflect on experiences that have been a source of dissonance, experiences that moved you out of your comfort zone into what Mary Louise Pratt calls contact zones--"areas of engagement that in all likelihood will remain contentious" (Royster 615).
Write for about 25 minutes. You may choose whether or not to post this writing to your blog. At 9:45, I'll ask volunteers to tell their stories so that we can hear them, in order to "include voicing as a phenomenon that is constructed and expressed visually and orally, and as a phenomenon that has import also in being a thing heard, perceived, and constructed" (Royster 612).
My sense of things is that individual stories placed one against another build credibility and offer. . . a litany of evidence from which a call for transformation in theory and practice might rightfully begin. My intent is to suggest that my stories in the company of others demand thoughtful response (Royster 612).
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Blogging Bizzell
As you compose your summary and response for Monday morning's class, I invite you to check out the following grad student blogs on Bizzell's "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty."
Linda's Blog (University of Minnesota)
Securing a Space (at Syracuse University)
Notice how each writer frames the key points of Bizzell's article. What seems to be each writer's purpose? Do they seem to be responding to an assignment, or something more?
Do specific features mark these blog postings as "academic discourse"? As such, do they invite dialogue or would you characterize them as knowledge-telling or "bastard" discourse?
And finally, can a blog help to fulfill the Bizzell's purposes of teaching writing, as paraphrased by the author of "Securing a Space:"
Just curious. . . I look forward to reading your blog postings!
Linda's Blog (University of Minnesota)
Securing a Space (at Syracuse University)
Notice how each writer frames the key points of Bizzell's article. What seems to be each writer's purpose? Do they seem to be responding to an assignment, or something more?
Do specific features mark these blog postings as "academic discourse"? As such, do they invite dialogue or would you characterize them as knowledge-telling or "bastard" discourse?
And finally, can a blog help to fulfill the Bizzell's purposes of teaching writing, as paraphrased by the author of "Securing a Space:"
it will help explain the often difficult transition into an academic discourse community; it will enable student writers to understand the makeup and conventions of different discourse communities; and it will help student writers define his/her goals in terms of the specific discourse community in which they’re writing in or to.
Just curious. . . I look forward to reading your blog postings!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Inventing Academic Discourse
Thanks to all who posted a summary and response to Flower and Hayes' cognitive process model. On Friday, you'll meet with your peer tutoring group to further explore your role as "collaborative planners" with your peer tutoring clients.
In order to prepare for thoughtful consideration of how collaborative invention happens, I have asked you to read a short excerpt from Linda Flower's 1998 textbook, Problem-solving Strategies for Writing In College and Community, which I handed out in class today.
On several of your blogs, I have posted comments and questions about the role of invention and discovery in the cognitive process model. As you may recall, David Bartholomae critiques the cognitive process model of invention as being a strictly cognitive/mental process, one that happens outside the act of writing. Does Flower's 1998 advice on collaborative planning (see handout) seem to be moving closer to Barthomae's notion of "locating subjects in a field of discourse"? That is, does Flower still seem to locate invention in the mind of the writer (i.e., as cognitive problem-solving), or does her later work seem to locate the problem of invention in a discourse community? I invite you to respond here, or to post a comment to one of your classmates' blogs.
On Friday, you'll share weekly reports and add Flower and Hayes and Bartholomae to your revised version of the Tutors' Guide to Comp Studies. See you then!
In order to prepare for thoughtful consideration of how collaborative invention happens, I have asked you to read a short excerpt from Linda Flower's 1998 textbook, Problem-solving Strategies for Writing In College and Community, which I handed out in class today.
On several of your blogs, I have posted comments and questions about the role of invention and discovery in the cognitive process model. As you may recall, David Bartholomae critiques the cognitive process model of invention as being a strictly cognitive/mental process, one that happens outside the act of writing. Does Flower's 1998 advice on collaborative planning (see handout) seem to be moving closer to Barthomae's notion of "locating subjects in a field of discourse"? That is, does Flower still seem to locate invention in the mind of the writer (i.e., as cognitive problem-solving), or does her later work seem to locate the problem of invention in a discourse community? I invite you to respond here, or to post a comment to one of your classmates' blogs.
On Friday, you'll share weekly reports and add Flower and Hayes and Bartholomae to your revised version of the Tutors' Guide to Comp Studies. See you then!
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
What is "Academic Discourse"? (Part Deux)
You have been assigned to a "mystery text" from Linda Flower's composition textbook, Problem Solving Strategies for College and Community. These sample texts come from different discourse communities, including academic discourse published in journals and student writing for courses as well as popular journalism and professional writing. Read your mystery text and decide: Is it an example of "academic discourse" or not? Was it written by a professor, a graduate student, an undergraduate, or a nonacademic writer? Make a note of at least three features of each text that you saw as "tip-offs."
In your response, please note whether this text fits your group's definition of academic discourse from last week's posting on Bartholomae's "Inventing the University." If not, does your group need to revise your definition in some way?
Post your response as a comment here; please remember to identify the text number in your posting.
After you have finished, compare your responses to those of other groups. Which features did you look for to evaluate these mystery texts? Do these features reveal important similarities or differences among our collective mental images of "academic discourse"? What is the focus of your image: words, rules, and local stylistic features, or rhetorical ones? Do these mystery texts let you speculate on different ways people in this particular discourse community--academic discourse--seem to use writing?
With these questions in mind, post a response to at least one other group's posting.
In your response, please note whether this text fits your group's definition of academic discourse from last week's posting on Bartholomae's "Inventing the University." If not, does your group need to revise your definition in some way?
Post your response as a comment here; please remember to identify the text number in your posting.
After you have finished, compare your responses to those of other groups. Which features did you look for to evaluate these mystery texts? Do these features reveal important similarities or differences among our collective mental images of "academic discourse"? What is the focus of your image: words, rules, and local stylistic features, or rhetorical ones? Do these mystery texts let you speculate on different ways people in this particular discourse community--academic discourse--seem to use writing?
With these questions in mind, post a response to at least one other group's posting.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Flower and Hayes' Cognitive Process Theory of Writing
For next Wednesday's meeting (10/10), please post to your blog a response to Flower and Hayes' (p. 273). In your summary, please describe the various tasks and functions of each stage of the cognitive process model.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
inventing "academic discourse"
During Wednesday's class meeting, I'd like to focus on "academic discourse"--a term that is often used but difficult to define.
Find a group to work with and pursue the questions below in some fashion. Aim at creating a complicated definition of academic discourse, in which you respond to ideas from Bartholomae and at least two other theorists we’ve read in Cross-Talk.
(The following questions contain some redundancy; one version of a question may make sense to you while another may not.)
*What is the context for academic discourse?
*What is the purpose of academic discourse?
*Who decides what it is and is not?
*Who or what is included in academic discourse?
*Who or what is excluded from academic discourse?
*What are the prevailing patterns of this discourse?
*What are the prevailing topics of this discourse?
*What are the prevailing styles?
*What are the prevailing methods of making an argument?
*How do you know academic discourse when you see it, or when you don't see it?
*What exceptions can you think of to all the generalizations you've made so far?
*How have you learned academic discourse; to what extent have you learned it?
Post your definition as a comment below.
Find a group to work with and pursue the questions below in some fashion. Aim at creating a complicated definition of academic discourse, in which you respond to ideas from Bartholomae and at least two other theorists we’ve read in Cross-Talk.
(The following questions contain some redundancy; one version of a question may make sense to you while another may not.)
*What is the context for academic discourse?
*What is the purpose of academic discourse?
*Who decides what it is and is not?
*Who or what is included in academic discourse?
*Who or what is excluded from academic discourse?
*What are the prevailing patterns of this discourse?
*What are the prevailing topics of this discourse?
*What are the prevailing styles?
*What are the prevailing methods of making an argument?
*How do you know academic discourse when you see it, or when you don't see it?
*What exceptions can you think of to all the generalizations you've made so far?
*How have you learned academic discourse; to what extent have you learned it?
Post your definition as a comment below.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Taking stock
Hello all, and thanks to Brett for summarizing feedback from Friday's meeting.
On Monday, we'll take stock of what we've learned so far from process, post-process, and audience theories. Together with your tutoring practicum group members, compose a "Tutors' Guide to Composition Theory." (Guidelines are posted on your Google Group's page.)
For Wednesday's class, please post to your blog a response to the Bartholamae reading ("Inventing the University," p. 623 Cross-Talk). Please post your response by 9 pm Tuesday, and respond to at least one of your classmates' blogs before our Wednesday meeting.
On Monday, we'll take stock of what we've learned so far from process, post-process, and audience theories. Together with your tutoring practicum group members, compose a "Tutors' Guide to Composition Theory." (Guidelines are posted on your Google Group's page.)
For Wednesday's class, please post to your blog a response to the Bartholamae reading ("Inventing the University," p. 623 Cross-Talk). Please post your response by 9 pm Tuesday, and respond to at least one of your classmates' blogs before our Wednesday meeting.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Audience Addressed and Invoked
For today’s in-class workshop, conduct a textual analysis of Bitch magazine editorials from the perspective of 1) audience addressed and 2) audience invoked.
After you have completed both analyses in your response, consider these questions:
Friday, September 21, 2007
Process and Post-Process
Writing Prompt: This morning, we will focus on the ways in which scholarly conversations about teaching writing as a process have changed over the course of thirty years.
Based on the essays you have read so far, are there any process-oriented issues or concerns that continue to be important in post-process theories? What perspectives on writing seem to have fallen out of favor in post-process theory? In other words, how has the conversation changed over time? What similarities and differences do you notice between the process theories and research of the 1970’s and the more recent post-process theories?
In your view, is there really such a big difference between process and post-process theories? Or have post-process theories “created their own rhetorical narrative of process as content-based, thus casting process as the scapegoat” (Breuch 109)?
Based on the essays you have read so far, are there any process-oriented issues or concerns that continue to be important in post-process theories? What perspectives on writing seem to have fallen out of favor in post-process theory? In other words, how has the conversation changed over time? What similarities and differences do you notice between the process theories and research of the 1970’s and the more recent post-process theories?
In your view, is there really such a big difference between process and post-process theories? Or have post-process theories “created their own rhetorical narrative of process as content-based, thus casting process as the scapegoat” (Breuch 109)?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Revision Strategies and Peer Tutoring
Last night, an English 401 peer tutor posted the following report:
*******************
I met with my tutee tonight. The assignment he was working on was to respond to/summarize an article in They Say/I Say. He decided to respond to the article by Graff talking about hidden intellectualism. I began the conversation by talking about things not related to the assignment. My tutee seemed a little reluctant to talk about his writing.
One thing I would like to talk a little more about are strategies to help the tutee talk about their writing.
It seemed like what he had prepared for our session was a very rough draft of his paper. I pointed out when revising he might want to pay a little more attention to the grammar. One thing I liked about our session was we were able to talk about how he liked to revise papers. His approach actually reminded me of how some of the "experienced writers" described simply writing a first draft to have ideas down and going back and organizing the ideas later. I obviously haven't seen the finished product but if he follows this strategy he should have a pretty solid final paper.
************************
In light of the research you've read for today's class meeting, how might you respond to your classmate? You might begin your consideration with general questions related to today's readings, such as
*******************
I met with my tutee tonight. The assignment he was working on was to respond to/summarize an article in They Say/I Say. He decided to respond to the article by Graff talking about hidden intellectualism. I began the conversation by talking about things not related to the assignment. My tutee seemed a little reluctant to talk about his writing.
One thing I would like to talk a little more about are strategies to help the tutee talk about their writing.
It seemed like what he had prepared for our session was a very rough draft of his paper. I pointed out when revising he might want to pay a little more attention to the grammar. One thing I liked about our session was we were able to talk about how he liked to revise papers. His approach actually reminded me of how some of the "experienced writers" described simply writing a first draft to have ideas down and going back and organizing the ideas later. I obviously haven't seen the finished product but if he follows this strategy he should have a pretty solid final paper.
************************
In light of the research you've read for today's class meeting, how might you respond to your classmate? You might begin your consideration with general questions related to today's readings, such as
- What is revision?
- How do unskilled writers write?
- How do inexperienced writers' revision strategies differ from those of experienced writers?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Writing as Process
Today's in-class work:
Part I: Find a partner or two and cluster around one computer. Copy and paste the following prompt into a document window, and compose a response based on the reading and writing you did to prepare for today’s class. You’ll have about half an hour to do this—concentrate, and pace yourselves. When you are done, please post your commentary to the course blog at http://crosstalkincomp.blogspot.com; include all your names.
Writing prompt: What I particularly want you to begin to consider is the relationship between Emig’s and Murray’s articles. What, taken together, do these two authors reveal about the nature of writing as a process or its relationship to learning? Do Murray and Emig seem to be describing the same process? What similarities and/or differences do you note?
Part II: Class Discussion
As your group finishes up, review your blog responses, as well as any other reading notes, questions, and marginal notes in your textbook. What discussion starters can you come up with—particularly good questions that will help us understand these essays?
Part I: Find a partner or two and cluster around one computer. Copy and paste the following prompt into a document window, and compose a response based on the reading and writing you did to prepare for today’s class. You’ll have about half an hour to do this—concentrate, and pace yourselves. When you are done, please post your commentary to the course blog at http://crosstalkincomp.blogspot.com; include all your names.
Writing prompt: What I particularly want you to begin to consider is the relationship between Emig’s and Murray’s articles. What, taken together, do these two authors reveal about the nature of writing as a process or its relationship to learning? Do Murray and Emig seem to be describing the same process? What similarities and/or differences do you note?
Part II: Class Discussion
As your group finishes up, review your blog responses, as well as any other reading notes, questions, and marginal notes in your textbook. What discussion starters can you come up with—particularly good questions that will help us understand these essays?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
James Berlin's "A Short History of Writing Instruction"
Monday's reading assignment is James Berlin's history of writing instruction in American colleges. For your blog response, please summarize the (1) economic, political and social changes, and (2) changes in curriculum and teaching methods for one of the following time periods discussed in Berlin's article:
1880-1900
1900-1917
1917-1945
1945-1960
1960-1975
1975-1985
Next Wednesday, you will work with a group to compose a timeline that connects each of these time periods. We'll attempt to answer the question: What continuities and contradictions have shaped the teaching of writing since the late nineteenth century?
1880-1900
1900-1917
1917-1945
1945-1960
1960-1975
1975-1985
Next Wednesday, you will work with a group to compose a timeline that connects each of these time periods. We'll attempt to answer the question: What continuities and contradictions have shaped the teaching of writing since the late nineteenth century?
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
They Say, I Say
I look forward to reading your summaries and responses to Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein's They Say, I Say. Students in my first-year composition (English 106) classes started using with the templates last week, with mixed responses to the method (agree/disagree/both). On Friday, students engaged in some provocative discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of using templates as a method of learning argumentative writing.
On Wednesday, we'll see what you have to say about They Say, I Say. Any connection between this model of argument and Bruffee's "conversation of mankind"? What does each method suggest about how people learn to write and how writing should be taught?
On Wednesday, we'll see what you have to say about They Say, I Say. Any connection between this model of argument and Bruffee's "conversation of mankind"? What does each method suggest about how people learn to write and how writing should be taught?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Welcome to the English 401 blog
Welcome to the English 401 blog. This blog serves to link the collective reading response journals of students enrolled in English 401 (Composition Theory and Research) at Elmhurst College. These student blogs include responses to course readings from Cross-Talk in Composition and other course texts. Each reading response should
When you've created your blog, email the URL to bridgeto@elmhurst.edu, and I'll link your blog to this page so that your classmates can visit and comment on your blog.
What you should not post on your blog: Please do not post any personal information about you, your classmates, or your peer tutoring client. Unlike the course Blackboard, this is a public space--anyone with an Internet connection can view what you post to your blog. Reflections on your peer tutoring experience should be posted to the English 401 Blackboard (Practicum Groups page).
For those of you who are, like me, new to the blogosphere: Welcome, and Happy Blogging!
- Summarize the article’s argument and its major evidence and/or implications.
- Explore connections between the article and your own experiences of learning to write and/or of being taught to write. (Note that learning to write and being taught to write are not necessarily the same experiences.)
- Compare, contrast, and/or synthesize this article with at least one other article we have read.
When you've created your blog, email the URL to bridgeto@elmhurst.edu, and I'll link your blog to this page so that your classmates can visit and comment on your blog.
What you should not post on your blog: Please do not post any personal information about you, your classmates, or your peer tutoring client. Unlike the course Blackboard, this is a public space--anyone with an Internet connection can view what you post to your blog. Reflections on your peer tutoring experience should be posted to the English 401 Blackboard (Practicum Groups page).
For those of you who are, like me, new to the blogosphere: Welcome, and Happy Blogging!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
