Alice Glarden Brand (706-713)

Alice Glarden Brand describes the roles of emotion and cognition in the writing process.  As instructors we must consider how emotions affect writing and how we can encourage an effective incorporation in writing.  Brand says that “students should know what their emotions can and cannot do during writing” (711).  She continues to emphasize that understanding emotional and intellectual signals is how students can distinguish appropriate steps in the writing process.  I think that emotion is a difficult aspect to teach in the writing courses.  We teach the five factors as a guide for writing—style, audience, genre, purpose, and context—but emotion can be subtly incorporated or strategically placed in writing, even if designated as an academic or professional piece (ex: persuasive writing we teach students to manipulate emotions to convince their readers to agree or support their idea presented). 

Brand explicitly states that emotion can be the motivator in writing, and that many are inspired to write because of emotions (706).  I think sometimes we avoid incorporating emotions because we stick with the cognitive model.  But Brand explains that “we know that logic often is not the normal mode of human thought” (709) and “how personality influences the way writers function” (711).  Ultimately, Brand is arguing the importance of incorporating both emotions and cognition in the writing process.  The basic principle indicates the importance of both concepts: “it is in cognition that ideas make sense” and “it is in emotion that this sense finds value” (711).  Therefore, we should be teaching writing as a collaboration of emotion and cognition. 

So, how can we teach writing in our own classes utilizing both emotion and cognition in the writing process?  I find it difficult sometimes to incorporate the emotional side of writing when working with students.  There is a firm tendency to have that separation from emotions and professional writing.  It can be difficult, as a teacher, to know about student emotions and continue to be impartial for the remaining of the semester.  That is one goal we strive for as teachers—complete fairness with all our grading.  I think emotions add a flavor to the recipe that could turn disastrous or a masterpiece.  But then again, writing is about taking risks and exploring topics that sometimes are deep down within.  I do agree with Brand that using emotions in writing can be motivational and can be a method for struggling writers.  I will end with Brand’s following comment about the collaboration of the two: “At the risk of oversimplifying, I believe that, if cognitive ability may be measure by moral orientation, then it can be traced to emotion” (708).

Clifford and Context

The essay starts out by discussing the political responsibility of composition teachers.  It asks a series of questions.  What do composition teachers hope to accomplish in the classroom?  Should they focus on rhetoric, clarity, and communication, as is required by the university and state law?  This knowledge would be useful in the real world (particularly in government or industry.  Is it acceptable (or desirable) to bring politics into the classroom, “[encouraging] opposition thinkers, social activists, and resistant readers and writers” (Clifford 861)?  Is it necessary to choose on or the other?  Is it even possible to bring politics into the classroom of a traditional college or university?  These are the questions that Clifford attempts to answer in his essay.

Clifford goes on to state that in both expressive and traditional rhetorical theory the writer is “free...to be an authentic and unique consciousness” (Clifford 862).  Structuralists, feminists, poststructuralists, and Marxists have contradicted that freedom that the writer has.  Structuralists argue that writers do not express their own ideas when they write, but rather they communicate “universal codes” (Clifford 862).  Poststructuralists believe that the same words can mean very different things, depending on the contexts they take place in.  Foucault believed that writers do not know what the rules are for different discourses, and they do not know the reason why they write and think the way they do.

Clifford also discusses The St. Martin’s Guide and its explanation of argumentative writing.  The St. Martin’s Guide states that writers base their main point and the side of the issue they support on facts, textual evidence, and statistics (logos).  The purpose of the writer is to influence readers.  Pathos and ethos are completely ignored in this type of writing.  Social context is completely ignored by the readers as well as the writer.  Clifford states that “a critique of writing theory and practice can only be fully understood when it is situated in a sociopolitical context” (Clifford 867).

In the essay, Clifford talks about how teaching composition has become such a routine.  Students are assigned specific tasks by the instructor, and they are expected to complete them on time and according to the teacher’s instructions.  Those who do this succeed in the class, but Clifford feels that those who don’t should not be excluded.  He states that “helping students to read and write and think in ways that both resist domination and exploitation and encourage self-consciousness about who they are and can be in the social world” (Clifford 872) is what composition instructors should be doing.

Sommers, Bruffee, and Revision

“Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers”

--Nancy Sommers

“Revision Strategies” is a critique of the linear model of writing, which manifests in classrooms via a modes-based instructional approach.  According to Sommers, a key flaw in this model is its inability to address revision in a meaningful way—the linear model is based on speech, and speech does not afford possibilities for revision.  To address a gap in revision-related research, Sommers conducted a study of revision practices as articulated by two distinct groups: first-year college writers and experienced adult writers.  Her findings point to the following trends:

Student Writers

·      Revision is understood primarily as a “rewording activity” ” (Sommers 326) as opposed to a “re-view” of the work (Sommers 327) 

·      Ideas are assumed to be complete and pre-formed in the mind; writing is simply an act of finding the proper wording to put them on the page

·      Students make changes according to a set of rules that may have little bearing on the specific rhetorical situation of the text they’re creating

·      “Because students do not see revision as an activity in which they modify and develop perspectives and ideas, they feel that if they know what they want to say, then there is little reason for making revisions” (Sommers 327).

·      End point: students need different revision strategies; a different approach to revision

Adult writers

·      Frame their revisions as an act of finding the form of an argument

·      Consider their reader when revising

·      Approach revision as part of a process of discovery (discovering meaning)

·      “The experienced writers imagine a reader (reading their product) whose existence and whose expectations influence their revision process.  They have abstracted the standards of a reader and this reader seems to be partially a reflection of themselves and functions as a critical and productive collaborator—a collaborator who has yet to love their work” (Sommers 329) 

The notable contrast between the first-year college writers and established professional ones struck me  as an instructor.  If these patterns hold today, that’s quite the gap to pedagogically bridge.  For myself, I see an interesting potential answer in Bruffee’s “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversations of Mankind.’”  This essay speaks to the idea of normal discourse (the accepted paradigms, conventions, conversations, values, assumptions of a community of knowledgeable peers) and abnormal discourse (whereas normal discourse maintains knowledge, abnormal discourse may generate it; it’s the space where a breakdown of consensus can lead to a revolutionary breakthrough or dismissible gibberish).  Bruffee argues that collaborative learning creates the necessary context for students to learn and practice normal discourse. Because every student has some kind of knowledge or experience, together they can combine their efforts to enter a given community (Bruffee puts it better: “mastery of a knowledge community’s normal discourse is the basic qualification for acceptance into that community” [552]).

So to connect Sommers and Bruffee, I’ll ask another question about the revision gap and how to bridge it.  If teaching is a matter of providing the social context necessary for effective knowledge-sharing and knowledge-generating conversation; if it’s a matter of facilitating familiarity with the normal discourse of our field, then how do we do all that?  How do we encourage student writers to approach and conduct and talk about revision like experienced writers? 

I wonder if looking to a model of revision is a way to go. An accessible model of revision-in-context that hits the points highlighted by Sommers: revision as an act of finding form; revision with the reader as a considered partner. 

My idea from the night (and this is hazy) comes from my experiences with some of the stand-up comedians here in the Fargo-Moorhead area.  There is a sizeable group of regulars and as I’ve been going to their shows for over a year and half now, I’ve had a kind of longitudinal chance to see the way some of them continually revise their sets, and it seems to me the good ones (I’m going to define “the good ones” by who I think is funny) hit the same notes as Sommers’s experienced writers.  In fact, since the stand-up set is a live genre, I would say comics are a more accessible example of a writer who revised with the audience in mind—the audience is right there, giving (or withholding) some kind of public response.  Not loving it yet, perhaps.  Maybe never.      

It would be interesting to talk in detail with some of the comics about their approaches to revision for two reasons: one, to see how they articulate the process (so a Sommers-esque approach) and two, to see if their processes could be translated or transformed into a pedagogical tool in the writing classroom.

"Writer's Block" : It's Not a Condition.

"The Essential Delay: When Writer's Block Isn't"

Donald M. Murray. 715-720.

I am now a Donald Murray disciple.  

I did not intend to become one after reading his essay, and I do not pretend to have a knowledgeable background in regards to his contributions to composition theory and research (although I will be now reading more of his work in the future). In this particular essay, Murray has articulated many of my own thoughts and beliefs regarding the writing process that I’ve been attempting to pass on to my students consciously, and even unconsciously in some circumstances.

Murray argues that the anxious stage that all writers go through before actually writing, or what we often call writer’s block,  (or what I experience as similar to that terrible feeling when a plane bounces on turbulence, or an elevator jumps two floors), is in fact a necessary and essential delay in the writing process for producing effective writing.

According to Murray, a writer needs to experience/feel/know five essential things before actually writing:

·      Information

·      Insight

·      Order

·      Need

·      Voice

Only after ascertaining a knowledge of these five things can the writer actually start drafting. I interpreted these five things as objects which writers must articulate in their mind before articulating in writing.

The “essential delay” is obviously a psychological process, but we tend to label it as a negative experience, thus “writer’s block”. I wonder why we do this…is it just a result of poor project management, or fear that what we have to say isn’t worthwhile for our readers? I am rarely unanxious when I write—the only time I’m not is when I’m furious or unhappy and by then, I’ve clearly gone through my essential delay. Although I have gone through my own essential delay writing this blog post (I delayed while doing a load of laundry, writing notes on the essay, and then typing sentence fragments in Word), I criticized myself for not writing this blog post immediately after reading the essay. 

Clearly, I was in the stage of “need". Murray notes that “We delay writing until we can find the need to write” (718). I developed an “internal need[…] to speak, and the perceived need of readers to listen” (718) afterwards.  I had not only a desire to speak and add to the conversation, but by writing this piece, I also determined that my readers needed to listen to my thoughts. It is in fact, of utmost importance that they do so.

Murray also notes that excellent writers also know to write with specifics, and I found  the most interesting quote to be located in the information section: “ ‘The more particular, the more specific you are, the more universal you are,' declares Nancy Hale” (717).  This quote identifies one of the peculiar problems of writing—it is difficult to make the subjective the objective, and to make your own personal experience relevant to the experience of others. It is also a problem I see in my own writing, and the writing of my students. My previous study in philosophy made me determine that holding a subjective view of the world is pure selfishness (even though often, it is the only view you have). Your own experience is not the one that matters all the time. Yet, a subjective view can also encourage readers to empathize with authors—but I don’t want my students to continue to embody a me-based culture through writing. I describe thesis statements to my students as having the characteristics that Hale discusses above in order to temporarily mollify my conundrum discussed in this paragraph.

Murray also discusses what he calls “insight." Insight may be a problem that “may be solved by the writing” or “a single vision or dominant meaning that will be tested by the writing of the first draft” (717). After finding this interest, Murray informs readers that the writer may finally begin the draft (717).  Additionally, determining order plays a crucial role in the delay as well (718).

I was surprised to find that Murray’s section on voice is the shortest section.  His primary thought regarding voice is that “An effective piece of writing creates the illusion of a writer speaking to a reader” (719). Is this it?  The not-so-new revelation that the voice must match the audience? I remember in high school that we went over and over how to construct voice—this semester I devoted two days of class to teaching how to essentially write in an academic style and voice because my students last semester lacked the understanding how to.  Perhaps though, this is Murray’s last ditch attempt at convincing his audience that the essential delay is necessary and that our anxiety regarding the essential delay is natural. Things come together when writers let things go. 

He's got me convinced. Anyone else? 

Howard and Plagiarism

In my current syllabus for English 120, I have a section about academic honesty (as required by the university) that was originally included on the sample syllabus given to me when I first started teaching. One of the main parts of the section is labeled “Academic Honesty Defined.” This is an interesting word choice because Rebecca Howard describes plagiarism as something that is not easily defined in his article, “Sexuality, Textuality: The Cultural Work of Plagiarism.” In my syllabus, academic honesty is defined as “All written and oral presentations must ‘respect the intellectual rights of others. Statements lifted verbatim from publications must be cited as quotations. Ideas, summaries or paraphrased material, and other information taken from the literature must be properly referenced’ (Guidelines for the Presentation of Disquisitions, NDSU Graduate School, 4).”

However, the academic honesty section continues with a specification by the English department. It states, “Instructors in the English department try to distinguish between inadvertent and deliberate plagiarism. Initial instances of inadvertent plagiarism will be pointed out and revision will be expected; deliberate plagiarism may result in zero for an assignment, possible F for the course.” This perspective on plagiarism is someone similar to Howard’s in that there are many different facets to the broad term. She would like to see the all-encompassing term of plagiarism broken down into more specific terms like “fraud, insufficient citation, and excessive repetition” (Howard 1207). The NDSU English department seems to acknowledge that a writer’s intent should be considered while “College regulations against plagiarism typically exclude the author and his or her intentions from the adjudication of cases” (1206).

In her article, Howard explains why the view of plagiarism needs to change. She draws connections between plagiarism and gender, describing how many scholars “gender” the way they discuss “authorship” (Howard 1207). For example, William Perry categorizes writing using words like “bull” and “cow” (Howard 1207). Howard writes, “Here Perry draws on the familiar attribution of abstraction (the intellect) to masculinity and concreteness (the body) to femininity” (1208). The gendering continues when the word plagiarism is traced back “to include not only the stealing of slaves but also textual appropriation” (Howard 1211). Additionally, plagiarism is viewed as a contamination of a work of writing like disease infects the body, where the body “is the feminine” (Howard 1212).

At the end of the article, Howard leaves us with her solution to the ambiguous nature of “plagiarism.” She believes that plagiarism should be linked with the writer of a piece, not just the piece itself. We seem to have adopted this view in the English department. I’m interested in knowing when this additional policy was added though. Howards article was published in 2000. What was the English department’s view of plagiarism back then?

Again, in regards to the many different ways one could plagiarize, Howard states “that everything be removed from that category” (1218). She seems to agree with us that “fraud” is unacceptable, however the other categorizes seem to be more open for discussion. As far as I’m aware, I have only discovered unintentional plagiarism during some of the first papers I received in English 120. However, after students are given the opportunity to revise, the problem of missing quotes or in-text citations seems to be cleared up.

Welch's "Ideology and Freshmen Textbook Production"

Kathleen Ethel Welch’s “Ideology and Freshmen Textbook Production: The Place of Theory in Writing Pedagogy”

(Pages 759-71)

Vickie Conner

First, I have always found it a mystery as to why many textbook editors who have never taught or have taught minimally are the sole creators of curriculum. Welch mentions on page 764 of the Composition Theory text that some students are becoming involved, in collaboration with the instructors, in developing college texts, and I am excited about this. As students learn, they know how they learn and what makes sense in a composition text. Welch states that fact that texts are written to educate the instructor? Does this make sense? Yes, the instructor could use some ideas to introduce the text; however, the student needs to make sense of how the text is aiding him or her in learning to develop the skill and knowledge of writing.

The second concern that derives from this essay is the fact that excerpts are added to textbooks and taken out of context of why and in what context these pieces were written. Students need, as Welch argues, to learn how writing is done in context for many authors and how everyday experiences bring on new topics for writing. In other words, the rhetorical situation needs to be evident in reading and understanding the invention of each of these cannon excerpts. This is why I agree that formalists cannot take out authorship entirely. When reading and construing text, it is wise to consider the entire context of why something was written, yet when editors simply include a section of a classic piece without any background is a false portrayal of how discourse is many times invented.