Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Readers eveywhere, you are needed!!
Audience addressed and Audience evoked the role if the audience:
This article addresses the audience and claims that there are two ideas of what that could be; according to their esteemed educated colleagues. But the writers of the piece think there is a third way of picturing who writers are and should be writing to/for.
The first is the addressed audience, which means the writer is writing to a specific person or group, i.e. teacher. The idea being the writer writes his product, the reader reads it and then gives feedback and the writer continues the process. The writers of this article claim this technique does not always work because, “No matter how much feedback writers may receive after they have written something, as the compose writers must rely in large part upon their vision of the reader, which they create, as readers do their visions of the writers, according to their own experiences and expectations.” Another apparent downside to addressed audiences is that the reader may “pander” to his readers, which is not the responsibility of the writer. “The central task of the writer then is not to analyze an audience and adapt discourse.” The writer is to give cues as to define the roll of the reader.
The second form of audience is one that is evoked by the writer; this is from Ongs’ theory. His main theory was that speaking and writing are very different and therefore need a different audience. Where a speaker talks he gets immediate response from the audience, a writers does not and therefore has to evoke an audience. The authors of this article have this to say on that subject, “…speaking and writing are, after all, both rhetorical acts.” Simply saying, yes they are different, but not as much as Ong claims. Ong claims the writers invent an audience and then give it a defined roll to play. But some of the hang ups of this theory, the writer has no knowledge of how much knowledge his imaginary readers have. This the authors claim puts a constraint on the reader, not only is the writer expecting a certain amount of knowledge, he may not have imagined enough knowledge for his audience. “Who does not consider the needs and interests of his audience risks loosing them.”
So their solution is to mix the two…in a way. The writer must, “establish the range of potential roles an audience may play.” They must also meet the expectations of their readers. So to explain in a nut shell, the writer must address the needs and expectations of his readers but also evoke needs, interests and knowledge at the risk of loosing them. The writer establishes the range of potential roles an audience can play, but can never forget the needs and expectations.
Life is a balancing game. With any two opposing theories, there is a middle ground which probably makes the most sense. I would have to agree with this article. I only have one thing to add. I this theory of there I feel is still a subconscious one, when we write we write for the skeptics of our essay, but also the teach someone who is not knowledgeable about or issue.
This article addresses the audience and claims that there are two ideas of what that could be; according to their esteemed educated colleagues. But the writers of the piece think there is a third way of picturing who writers are and should be writing to/for.
The first is the addressed audience, which means the writer is writing to a specific person or group, i.e. teacher. The idea being the writer writes his product, the reader reads it and then gives feedback and the writer continues the process. The writers of this article claim this technique does not always work because, “No matter how much feedback writers may receive after they have written something, as the compose writers must rely in large part upon their vision of the reader, which they create, as readers do their visions of the writers, according to their own experiences and expectations.” Another apparent downside to addressed audiences is that the reader may “pander” to his readers, which is not the responsibility of the writer. “The central task of the writer then is not to analyze an audience and adapt discourse.” The writer is to give cues as to define the roll of the reader.
The second form of audience is one that is evoked by the writer; this is from Ongs’ theory. His main theory was that speaking and writing are very different and therefore need a different audience. Where a speaker talks he gets immediate response from the audience, a writers does not and therefore has to evoke an audience. The authors of this article have this to say on that subject, “…speaking and writing are, after all, both rhetorical acts.” Simply saying, yes they are different, but not as much as Ong claims. Ong claims the writers invent an audience and then give it a defined roll to play. But some of the hang ups of this theory, the writer has no knowledge of how much knowledge his imaginary readers have. This the authors claim puts a constraint on the reader, not only is the writer expecting a certain amount of knowledge, he may not have imagined enough knowledge for his audience. “Who does not consider the needs and interests of his audience risks loosing them.”
So their solution is to mix the two…in a way. The writer must, “establish the range of potential roles an audience may play.” They must also meet the expectations of their readers. So to explain in a nut shell, the writer must address the needs and expectations of his readers but also evoke needs, interests and knowledge at the risk of loosing them. The writer establishes the range of potential roles an audience can play, but can never forget the needs and expectations.
Life is a balancing game. With any two opposing theories, there is a middle ground which probably makes the most sense. I would have to agree with this article. I only have one thing to add. I this theory of there I feel is still a subconscious one, when we write we write for the skeptics of our essay, but also the teach someone who is not knowledgeable about or issue.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Who am I writing this too?
The topic of this essay was the relationships between writers and their readers ( audience) and how they differ from that of an orator and his audience. Ong tell us that there is a big difference between the two, for one the writer has no immediate reaction from his audience like an orator would, and secondly, to who is the writer really talking? This second question is Ongs main point, he say that the writer is writing to a "readership" that is far away in space and also in time. So in many cases the writer has to invent a reader to write to. But this does not mean imagine everyone that might read your story, what is meant is what is the relationship of writer and reader. Homer had his audience, but his was not the same as Faulkners or Hemmingways readership. One also writes different when writing to different people, this case was proven when Ong went through some of the other possible genres beside fiction, like history, letters and dairy's. I especially liked his example of the student asked to write about his summer in class, who is the student supposed to write the essay to? Normally the student would not tell the teacher what he did in the summer. This is way Ong argues a writer should fictionalize his audience.
On a personal note, I really enjoyed this article, because it did bring up some questions I had been mussing over. And it also stressed some points which were also mentioned in some prior essay's. I don't remember which essay it was, but I recall one arguing the student should never write his paper for the teacher or for oneself, which i agree to.
On a personal note, I really enjoyed this article, because it did bring up some questions I had been mussing over. And it also stressed some points which were also mentioned in some prior essay's. I don't remember which essay it was, but I recall one arguing the student should never write his paper for the teacher or for oneself, which i agree to.
Friday, September 21, 2007
how do i teach my studnets, wait i dont have any.
Well how does one teach the writing process? Does one use the three writing steps most commonly associated with teaching, pre-writing, writing and revision, or does the teacher use dialogue with the student to get the wanted outcome. There are many compelling cases: some argue that there is a scientific formula to writing, whereas some say that writing can not be taught, but then some argue that the teacher should get out to of the way and the student will learn by doing. Some stressed the pre-writing, but some said that the revision is the most important process, and then there is Breuch. Breuch does not believe that any “process” is the correct way to teach her students how to write, she believes in listening, discussing ideas and trying to meet her students pedagogical needs what a weirdo. There was mention of a scapegoat. Each theory needs some other theory to blame for its problems or for an example of why it does not work. But here’s an idea, maybe all the theories have some real useful truth in them. I would like to argue the “little from column “A”, and a little from column “B”” theory. Here I will attempt to argue that it might be useful to pinch some ideas from each theory and try them out in your classroom. So in a way we can agree with Breuch, who believes in listening to her students and trying to meet her student’s pedagogical needs. If we want to do that, it makes sense to use some of the prewite, write and rewrite, but also to focus on different parts of the process or even let your students run wild and write what they want. I think its up to the teacher to decide which works best.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Crosstalk blog...............
I agree with Kent, I think writing is something that can not really be defined in set process. For example, the last couple of articles we have read have stated the prewriting is 85% of the process but then a scientific study was done that proved the opposite. Yes this was done with so called "unskilled" writers but science is involved and science is never wrong. I don't think there is one method of teaching writing, or revising for that matter. In school we learn there are at least three types of learning, seeing, feeling, sound, we have the cognitive and the connectionalism approaches to learning. So I think all of these past articles clue us in a bit closer to a form that fits us. Maybe the teachers should find a method that fits them rather then visa-versa.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
free flow
Blog: on the composing process,
I found this essay really interesting and helpful in understand the writing process. The findings that every writer goes through three steps, is obvious but also helpful to understand. I thought that in constricted the theory of Murray that 85% of writing is prewriting, but the again it’s a study of “unskilled” writers. By the way the sample writer they had, John, I don’t think was a great choice; because unskilled writer would have been a complement for this guy. I understand this was a study of students who were not particularly, but couldn’t they have picked people who have an understanding of the language but have problems in essay writings? I liked the idea but was not too pleased with the selection of the study. But it did help give a clear scientific understanding what the writing process especially the revising process is. This brings us to the other article by Nancy Summers, who also put science in the English classroom. Her study was on revising, how inexperienced writers compared to experienced writers. She did a nice study on the differences of revision of the two groups. The younger writers seemed to be more focused on grimmer and deleting repeated words and phrases then the overall structure of the paper. And the overall structure of the paper is exactly what the more experienced writers focused on. They wanted to have the reader to fully understand their argument and then they focused on editing the grammar and spelling.
I found this essay really interesting and helpful in understand the writing process. The findings that every writer goes through three steps, is obvious but also helpful to understand. I thought that in constricted the theory of Murray that 85% of writing is prewriting, but the again it’s a study of “unskilled” writers. By the way the sample writer they had, John, I don’t think was a great choice; because unskilled writer would have been a complement for this guy. I understand this was a study of students who were not particularly, but couldn’t they have picked people who have an understanding of the language but have problems in essay writings? I liked the idea but was not too pleased with the selection of the study. But it did help give a clear scientific understanding what the writing process especially the revising process is. This brings us to the other article by Nancy Summers, who also put science in the English classroom. Her study was on revising, how inexperienced writers compared to experienced writers. She did a nice study on the differences of revision of the two groups. The younger writers seemed to be more focused on grimmer and deleting repeated words and phrases then the overall structure of the paper. And the overall structure of the paper is exactly what the more experienced writers focused on. They wanted to have the reader to fully understand their argument and then they focused on editing the grammar and spelling.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
3 in 1
Well we had three readings to read for Monday’s class. The first was the introduction to Cross Talk, the second was Donald Murray’s article entitled Teach Writing as a Process Not Product and lastly we read Janet Emig’s Writing as a Mode of Learning. All three are obviously educational pieces and are meant to help fellow teachers in the art of teaching English.
The introduction simply stated why and how the book was complied and ordered. The intro stated that one must understand completely the theory of a subject to be able to use it freely, which is very true. Murray’s article argued that writing should be taught as an on going process rather then a product. Murray said that, “Instead of teaching a finished product, we should teach unfinished writing, and glory in its unfinishedness.” Meaning that the student is there to learn, he does not come to class already being a scholar; let the student work it out. Murray was for the idea of having his students use what ever form of writing and pick a topic of their choice to get across what they wanted to say. This articles’ thesis seems to be, that the teacher “should respond to his students, not for what they have done, but for what they may do…”
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.
I think all of these articles go very nice with Bruffee’s collaborative teaching theory. I also agree whole heartedly with Janet’s theory of writing being the best learning tool. For example I take notes in all of my classes if I need to or not. I do this because I know if I listen, write and then look over what I have written I will most likely remember what the teacher said.
The introduction simply stated why and how the book was complied and ordered. The intro stated that one must understand completely the theory of a subject to be able to use it freely, which is very true. Murray’s article argued that writing should be taught as an on going process rather then a product. Murray said that, “Instead of teaching a finished product, we should teach unfinished writing, and glory in its unfinishedness.” Meaning that the student is there to learn, he does not come to class already being a scholar; let the student work it out. Murray was for the idea of having his students use what ever form of writing and pick a topic of their choice to get across what they wanted to say. This articles’ thesis seems to be, that the teacher “should respond to his students, not for what they have done, but for what they may do…”
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.
I think all of these articles go very nice with Bruffee’s collaborative teaching theory. I also agree whole heartedly with Janet’s theory of writing being the best learning tool. For example I take notes in all of my classes if I need to or not. I do this because I know if I listen, write and then look over what I have written I will most likely remember what the teacher said.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
1917-1944
1917-1944
Economic, Political and Social Debates:
The time between 1917 and 1944, saw the end of WW1, the stock market crash of 1929, the great depression and the beginning of WW2; it goes without saying it was a time of unrest. This was a time of great national sorrow but also a time that saw a nation come into its own. Americans had little to no money, due to the stock market crash, and then the great depression and dust bowl. WW2 helped pull us out of this economical hole, by giving many Americans jobs. The jobs were not only for white males, America was in a crisis and she needed all her people to work together. Be it the men who went to fight over seas, the women who took the jobs the men had left behind or the elderly who got back to work and did anything they could to help. This was also a time of change, it had to be there was no other way, the women had to work because the men were overseas, and the African Americans were also called upon to either work or join the armed forces. Social prejudices were beginning to be knocked down, granted it took many years afterwards, but it was a beginning. But what really got America out of the depression were all the factories that opened up to manufacture planes, guns and other military equipment, which poured money back into the country.
Changes in Methods, Curriculum, and Students:
During this time of unrest and change, it is no surprise the American school system acted in much the same way. The teachers organized courses with patriotic themes and then focused more on the individual and creative potential of the student. The classroom was beginning to be a place, where students could start to “unlock” the creative forces, “providing a free uninhibited environment.” There were to schools of thought on how to teach English, one stated that English was an art and could be learned by all, and that the teacher’s job was to create en environment where this could happen. The other school said writing was more of a “…preparation for the more efficient uses of language.” But on the whole it is safe to sat, that in this time period creative writing really had a huge emergence. The main arguments for the teaching of writing in more of a creative context were: It would enhance the students’ enjoyment of literature; it would improve the mechanical elements of writing, and would enhance students’ pleasure in writing. In response to the freedom in the English room, came standardized testing, the argument being, “whatever exists, exists in some quantity and so could be measured.” The testing is students in English led to tracking. These tests were culturally biased and were put into place to test students but to also reinforce class, race and gender relations. Through these tests came the question of comparison and so national-normed models of “…varying degrees of excellence” were created.
In this time writing became more of a creative and social activity but also one that in its educational form expressed the prejudices and problems of the time.
Economic, Political and Social Debates:
The time between 1917 and 1944, saw the end of WW1, the stock market crash of 1929, the great depression and the beginning of WW2; it goes without saying it was a time of unrest. This was a time of great national sorrow but also a time that saw a nation come into its own. Americans had little to no money, due to the stock market crash, and then the great depression and dust bowl. WW2 helped pull us out of this economical hole, by giving many Americans jobs. The jobs were not only for white males, America was in a crisis and she needed all her people to work together. Be it the men who went to fight over seas, the women who took the jobs the men had left behind or the elderly who got back to work and did anything they could to help. This was also a time of change, it had to be there was no other way, the women had to work because the men were overseas, and the African Americans were also called upon to either work or join the armed forces. Social prejudices were beginning to be knocked down, granted it took many years afterwards, but it was a beginning. But what really got America out of the depression were all the factories that opened up to manufacture planes, guns and other military equipment, which poured money back into the country.
Changes in Methods, Curriculum, and Students:
During this time of unrest and change, it is no surprise the American school system acted in much the same way. The teachers organized courses with patriotic themes and then focused more on the individual and creative potential of the student. The classroom was beginning to be a place, where students could start to “unlock” the creative forces, “providing a free uninhibited environment.” There were to schools of thought on how to teach English, one stated that English was an art and could be learned by all, and that the teacher’s job was to create en environment where this could happen. The other school said writing was more of a “…preparation for the more efficient uses of language.” But on the whole it is safe to sat, that in this time period creative writing really had a huge emergence. The main arguments for the teaching of writing in more of a creative context were: It would enhance the students’ enjoyment of literature; it would improve the mechanical elements of writing, and would enhance students’ pleasure in writing. In response to the freedom in the English room, came standardized testing, the argument being, “whatever exists, exists in some quantity and so could be measured.” The testing is students in English led to tracking. These tests were culturally biased and were put into place to test students but to also reinforce class, race and gender relations. Through these tests came the question of comparison and so national-normed models of “…varying degrees of excellence” were created.
In this time writing became more of a creative and social activity but also one that in its educational form expressed the prejudices and problems of the time.
Friday, September 7, 2007
how we can help
They Say this book will help and I Say, “I concur”
Basically a Tutor can just go through some of the main chapters such as “the art of summarizing”, “The Art of Quoting,” ways to respond, and especially “why it matters.” YOU can help a tutee by going through the exercises at the end of each chapter or by reading their essays and seeing if they have any of the qualities talked about in the book. I am sure I will be using some of these templates in my upcoming papers, so I will definitely stress this to my tutee. I really liked that they had their students make sure to bring at least one opposing point into their essays. I think that is a very important point to stress. The summarizing chapter was very good and helpful to all writers and gives you a few different ways to go about writing one. Also the list at the end of that chapter with words one can use for introducing summaries and quotations was very helpful. Would I use the templates? I think I would have a session were me and my tutee try out some of the templates from different chapters and see how they worked. Then we could talk about how they changed our views on writing and if the point was made clearer through the template. Who Cares was also a good one, I liked bringing in something that most people care about to force our reader to care about our paper. The templates allow you to just try some of theses things out, and that’s what I plan on doing with myself and my tutee!
Basically a Tutor can just go through some of the main chapters such as “the art of summarizing”, “The Art of Quoting,” ways to respond, and especially “why it matters.” YOU can help a tutee by going through the exercises at the end of each chapter or by reading their essays and seeing if they have any of the qualities talked about in the book. I am sure I will be using some of these templates in my upcoming papers, so I will definitely stress this to my tutee. I really liked that they had their students make sure to bring at least one opposing point into their essays. I think that is a very important point to stress. The summarizing chapter was very good and helpful to all writers and gives you a few different ways to go about writing one. Also the list at the end of that chapter with words one can use for introducing summaries and quotations was very helpful. Would I use the templates? I think I would have a session were me and my tutee try out some of the templates from different chapters and see how they worked. Then we could talk about how they changed our views on writing and if the point was made clearer through the template. Who Cares was also a good one, I liked bringing in something that most people care about to force our reader to care about our paper. The templates allow you to just try some of theses things out, and that’s what I plan on doing with myself and my tutee!
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
hey there! hi there
Well first off I would like to congratulate myself on the blog, I never thought I would be here, but that goes to show you that life is unpredictable. So with the wording on the homework assignment, “Post to your blog a response to Exercise #2 on p. 14, They Say, I Say.” I am assuming that because it does not say DO exercise # 2 we do not do the exercise but share are views on the whole template idea and its method of teaching. The first thing that came to mind was I felt the author was kind of daring the reader to come up with a better form then their template. “…explain why you believe your own writing method is preferable.” I must say I agree with the books ideas because it does give students (myself included) a good start on writing a good argumentative paper and also challenges students to look at a given subject from more than one angle. Also you can’t go wrong with a structured paper when you are a student, because then you know you are fulfilling the teachers wishes. In addition to this it also helps students use rhetoric better and more structured allowing them to be freer in both thinking and writing. Some might object of course, on the grounds that it does stifle your creativity when you’re given a structure to write an essay on and told what to write. Yet I would argue that in all aspects of life you need to learn the basics before you can learn to dribble behind your back. Overall then, I believe that these templates will help students not only write more structured essay but to think better and more independently. So was that not a well structured and thought out response on a blog to an exercise in a text book due on Wednesday?
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
howdy there
this is me seeing how this works???
Armless, One-Legged Driver Leads Chase
Friday, May 11, 2007
(05-11) 14:20 PDT New Port Richey, Fla. (AP) --
Authorities were led on a high speed vehicle chase by an armless, one-legged man, and they said this wasn't the first time the 40-year-old eluded police.
Michael Francis Wiley taught himself to drive after losing both arms and a leg in an electrical accident when he was 13. He spent time in prison for kicking a Florida Highway Patrol trooper after an accident in 1996. He led police on a 120 mph chase in 1998.
On Tuesday, Wiley sped off in a Ford Explorer when police approached him at a convenience store, New Port Richey police Capt. Darryl Garman said. Officers pursued, but called off the chase after eight minutes because they did not want to put others in danger, Garman said.
Armless, One-Legged Driver Leads Chase
Friday, May 11, 2007
(05-11) 14:20 PDT New Port Richey, Fla. (AP) --
Authorities were led on a high speed vehicle chase by an armless, one-legged man, and they said this wasn't the first time the 40-year-old eluded police.
Michael Francis Wiley taught himself to drive after losing both arms and a leg in an electrical accident when he was 13. He spent time in prison for kicking a Florida Highway Patrol trooper after an accident in 1996. He led police on a 120 mph chase in 1998.
On Tuesday, Wiley sped off in a Ford Explorer when police approached him at a convenience store, New Port Richey police Capt. Darryl Garman said. Officers pursued, but called off the chase after eight minutes because they did not want to put others in danger, Garman said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)