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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)