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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Sydney Ledger and Catherine Verdico
Murray’s article focused more on the student’s need and how to allow the student to learn to write without the teacher’s instruction because this will only limit their learning process. Emig focused on how to use writing, talking, reading and listening as modes of learning. The main difference between the two is that Murray focuses on what benefits the students most while Emig focuses more on the actual process.
Both authors imply that there is a direct relationship between writing and learning, because writing helps students learn.
In general, both Emig and Murray are describing the same process. But when you look at it specifically, they focus on two different methods. While both are talking about writing as a learning tool, Murray focuses on students using their own writing to learn to write, and Emig wants students to use all four processes—writing, listening, reading and talking-- to learn to write.
Kara, Susan, Meghann, Katie
Both authors agree that writing is not about the finished product, but rather about the process of composing. According to Murray, taken literally, the process is prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Emig stresses more so than Murray that the finished product is also important to the learning process. Murray says that the students need to be actively involved and it should not be solely the teacher involved in lecture about writing. The teacher needs to take a step back and allow the student to write and learn from that writing. Emig agrees that writing works best with self-provided feedback as well as reinforcement. Both authors view writing as a very unique process. Murray stresses the idea of prewriting which should be 85% of your work and that is a very personal process. Emig points out that writing is a verbal process very much different from reading and listening and even talking. Both authors describe the same process, but Emig takes it one step farther by describing how a teacher would implement it in the classroom as a learning strategy. They both stress the importance of reinforcement, self-provided feedback, and that writing is a very active process. Only by participating in the process can a student really learn from it. They do not necessarily learn from the finished product, but rather from the process to achieve that product.
Lindsay Rosasco
Sheena Dutt
Ian Turner
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?
Both Emig and Murray are exploring writing as more than just a product. They both believe that there is some process involved when writing a paper. Both authors describe the power in self provided feedback. Murray's notion of rewriting would do exactly this. Both authors understand that writing is a process and that it is active and self-rhythmed.
It seems as if Murray and Emig are describing the same process however Murray "discovery we call writing" focuses on writing itself, while Emig focuses on learning through writing. Murray's artcile is sort of a stepping stone to Emig's article. Murray's article is a starting point for writing while Emig's article is a step beyond (writing as a learning tool). At the core of both articles student's inner language faculties could be his or her own teacher.
Maria Di Prizio
Crystal Vela
Luke Stefan
Emig and Murray both think that you should let the student write at their own pace. They both think that writing is unique; everyone adapts their own style and form to the writing. Also writing enhances creativity for the students. Emig thought on writing is to be committed, engaged and personal; and Murray is definitely going to agree with the engaged and personal aspect of writing. No we do not think that Emig and Murray were describing the same thing. Murray writes more guidelines to teach writing whereas Emig is more concerned with the definition of writing. Emig’s definition of writing may not be the same one as Murray is teaching.
Murray writes a more encouraging essay. He seems to try to help teachers encourage writing in their classrooms. Emig is more straight forward with her essay and the point of how writing enhances learning. Emig seems to have been writing a very academic essay, for a professional audience. We believe this due to the fact that there were many citations and theories from different researchers. Murray on the other hand could appeal to a general audience. He was simply stating his own ideas in an informal way.
Murray focuses more on the “search for truth” as he terms it, while Emig focuses more on the final product as a unique specimen. Emig feels that writing as a whole should be an important of the learning process. Reading, writing, talking, and listening are a core approach to learning.
At first glance, while the two authors appear to be on the same page, further reading indicates that the authors are speaking of two different things. Murray concentrates far more on the process of writing and how it is taught, what truths we can find in it, and so forth. Emig is an advocate for writing as a mode for learning and the role that writing itself plays in the learning process. They are not describing the same process.
The similarities between the two articles both refer to the importance of the process itself, although the authors refer to two entirely different processes. Murray’s foundation for his process is the “process of discovery through language.” Both authors emphasize the role of the student in the writing process and how important the student is. The first five implications that Murray offers in his text all concern the student and how the student should write. Emig references the student’s importance in her ideas of listening, reading, writing, and speaking. Murray in his article is stating how the student relates to the
process and Emig speaks of how the process of writing is related to learning itself.
Tara Hass
Bree Kubin
Jake Lindhorst
Brett and Stephen
Janet Emig’s article states that Writing is the best mode of learning. I really agree with her theory here. Although Janet made some very compelling arguments about why her theory is correct, none was as effective as this. She said that there are three types of learning, (1) enactive-we learn by “doing”; (2) iconic- we learn “by depiction” in an image; and (3) symbolic- we learn “by restatement in words” If these three ways of learning are accepted, then Janet is right by saying that writing envelops all three.
Murray says that writing is an ongoing process in terms of teaching composition. The student in this case, learns how to write through multiple drafts which emphasize how they got there rather than the final product. The processes are prewriting, writing, and rewriting. . In terms of compositional education, he suggests that teachers shouldn't teach composition with the premise that the process will yield a product, but rather the process is the product.
Both Murray and Emig theorize composition through processes. They both seem to suggest the same thing, Murray saying that you learn writing through the process of writing and Emig says you learn through writing. If we accept that Emig’s three types of learning are true, inactive, iconic, and symbolic; then we agree writing envelopes all three. Therefore Emig’s three aspect of learning compare to Murray’s processes of writing, prewriting, writing and rewriting.
Safia Farid
Emig and Murray do seem to be describing the same process in their own ways. Would both agree that writing is a process, a learning process. They both agree that it is not completely about the finished product but about the process. Murray emphasizes prewriting and rewriting in his stages and also says its a process through language. Emig says that writing differs from language. They differ in that Murray stated ways that would help the students go through the process, whereas Emig emphasized more on the process itself. They would both agree that writing is a process that requires feedback and such.
Post a Comment