Romano, Field, and De Huergo

In the article “Web Literacies of the Already Accessed and Technically Inclined,” Romano, Field and De Huergo discuss student answers to whether or not they “sometimes choose the Spanish-language option” when searching on the web (1486).  Many of the students responded in a way that shows how they view English and Spanish as existing in a hierarchical relationship (with Spanish marginalized). A few of the students, however, responded in a way that reveals their awareness of kairos:  for these few students, there is an “understanding of language as situation specific rather than hierarchical. For them, context dictates usage” (1487).  Unfortunately, Romano, Field, and De Huergo do not know why some students “came to kairos when others did not” (1487). 

One way to help students come to kairos would be to explicitly teach it.  It appears that the rhetorical analysis unit may be a good place to introduce this concept (with all the talk of “social context”).  Understanding context seems to be a great way for students to understand how a variety of discourses can be useful.  Delpit has suggested that varieties of English other than the accepted standard be acknowledged in the classroom.  Doing this will, hopefully, help groups of students who have historically been marginalized (Delpit speaks of African Americans, but Romano, Field, and De Huergo’s discussion of the Monterrey, bilingual children applies—especially when considering how the children have marginalized their first language internally). 

Although context dictates accepted usage, Brandt and Clinton’s reminder that texts can transcend context and connect the local to the global be must acknowledged as well.  According to Brandt and Clinton, the autonomous model of texts was rightfully rejected, but texts still have autonomous traits. Brand and Clinton’s ideas do not actually contradict Delpit’s or Romano, Field, and De Huergo’s.  If students are taught about texts as being attached to certain contexts, part of the context for some texts is that they will transcend local context and become part of a global context. The idea that one language is simply superior to another is not true, and teaching students about context will, hopefully, teach students why a certain language or dialect will be more desirable in some contexts than others.  If you want your text to have a global effect, then it is wise to choose a global language.  If you want a text to affect a very specific group of people on a more local level, then in that context, non-standard English or another language altogether may be more desirable. 

I think a fun assignment might get students to start playing with context specifically.  If students had to redo an assignment based on a changing context (moving from the global to the local, perhaps?), what would they change as a result?  Why would these certain changes be more effective?  Such an assignment would help students understand kairos.  

Webb-Sunderhaus (1600-1616)

This essay talks about the effect that family members have on the literacy of college students taking English Composition classes in Appalachia.  The author researched “the interplay of literacy and identity among Appalachians enrolled in college composition courses” (Webb-Sunderhaus 1601).  Through her research, the author found that the colleges that the students attended certainly played a role in the development of students’ beliefs about literacy and their identity, however, she also discovered that colleges are not the only sponsors of literacy for the students.  Colleges are not necessarily the largest or most influential sponsors either.  The group of sponsors that the author specifically focused on was students’ family members.  One thing that the author found is that Appalachian college students’ families were not always supportive sponsors of their literacy.  Instead, some families also inhibited the student’s developing literacy.  In some cases, one single family member both supported and inhibited the student’s literacy.

Webb-Sunderhaus conducted research by observing and recording college composition classes at two different colleges, taking a demographic survey, and conducting interviews.  The study the author conducted found that college students in these composition classes had multiple sources of literacy sponsorship.  The first influence was spiritual.  Many of the study participants talked about the role of church and religion in their interviews.  Students get most of their values and meanings from the Bible.  Other literacy sponsors include pastors or family members, such as siblings.  The second influence was immediate family members.  Examples of this sponsorship include “recommendations of specific readings, writing notes, making Biblical analogies, and e-mailing (Webb-Sunderhaus 1605).  Extended family members were the third influence.  People such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins helped to develop the college students’ literacy.  One student in the study talked about how her grandparents gave her lunch and a quiet place to study at their house during the day.  Another student discussed how her aunt gave her strategies for talking to her professors and seeking out other literacy sponsors.  The fourth influence was parents.  Sometimes parents would help their children connect with other literacy sponsors.  Other times, the parents would discuss the child’s homework with them or encourage them to stay in school.

In addition to the sponsors of literacy, Webb-Sunderhaus also found in her study that there are inhibitors of literacy.  One inhibitor is sharing conflicting meanings about literacy.  Another inhibitor is social forces, like poor health care and stereotypical gender roles.

Miller/Shepherd and "Blogging as Social Action"

"Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog" by Carolyn R. Miller and Dawn Shepherd attempts to situate blogs into a specific genre. It provides a background about the needs of individuals to express themselves more publicly and receive more private information about others.  Additionally, it describes the evolution and history of weblogs in the 1990s.

While reading the article, I reflected on some of my previous experiences with blogs.

I had my first blog during high school. It was hosted on a site called Xanga and it was overly personal. I just looked it up and I can't believe that I wrote some of the stuff that I wrote. Throughout all of the posts that I read, I don't think I ever used a capital letter. I also had this habit of including random curse words and typing "uhmmm" a lot. Overall, it seems to relate closely with the diary genre. However, many of my friends were active on the site and knew it was my blog, so it had an intended audience.

Throughout my undergrad, I had to create a few blogs for classes. The one that I became most involved with was a blog that I wrote during Electronic Community with Dr. Brooks last year. I posted quite regularly (3-5 times a week) and tried to mesh my personal perspective with somewhat academic topics. Although I intended to keep up the blog after the class ended, that only lasted for a little while.

Now, as a teacher, I am requiring my students to keep a blog. They each have their own blog that is listed as a link on the class blog. I provide them with prompts each week and they are supposed to write a post that is at least 200 words. During many of the initial posts, I observed very informal language that was the equivalent of text-speak. Also, they seemed to forget that I was going to read it. Many of the posts were blatantly honest and critical. I assume that this type of reaction would not have been the same if I had asked them to write a reflection in class.

At the end of the article, Miller and Shepherd concluded, "The blog-as-genre is a contemporary contribution to the art of the self" (1469). In many cases, I think this designation fits. In each of my different experiences, blogs cause individuals to open up and expose more about themselves.

Poor Flowers and Hayes: Another Critique by Atkinson

Last week we talked a lot about Flower and Hayes’ process theory model, particularly about its shortcomings.  Dwight Atkinson presents another critique of their model that we hadn’t discussed: Flower and Hayes were looking at the cognitive processes at work in mainstream Western citizens, not taking into account how different cultures may approach writing.  This is related to Delpit’s article we read earlier (which I also blogged about): academic writing tends to limit itself to the dominant discourse and excludes many other voices.  However, instead of looking at word choice, Atkinson is discussing the very methods of writing that L2 learners use.

It just so happens that I presented on a similar topic last Friday at the Methods of Social Research conference.  My presentation was on contrastive rhetoric, which is a field within English studies that examines how writing styles differ among different cultures.  One of the most common and basic illustrations of these differences are shown in the diagrams by Robert Kaplan (shown above).  It’s easy to imagine why Flower and Hayes’ step-by-step approach would appeal to English writers, who like to have writing that also entails a linear logic.  However, this is not the way that all writers structure their papers, and therefore it’s likely that they are not comfortable approaching writing in the same way.  For example, look at the diagram for Romance writers.  At my presentation, when I confessed that I didn’t understand the Romance diagram, Massimo was kind enough to explain it to me.  He said that people in Italy put a strong emphasis on personal genius.  Thus, when writing, one doesn’t always go straight from point A to point B.  Italian writers are given more room to go off on tangents, giving the readers insight into how the inner genius works.  I imagine that a process approach would be very limiting to these writers, but something closer to expressivism might appeal to them.

So where does this leave us as composition instructors?  Although we are not teaching ESL composition, I’m sure all of us have had students in our classrooms who are from different cultures.  Should we just throw out our brainstorming, drafting, and revising strategies?  I was asked a similar question during my conference presentation: should we just ignore non-standard writing patterns?  My rather flimsy answer is the same: open up the lines of communication.  Make your expectations clear to your students, and ask them to describe their expectations and experiences with writing.  It can be a good learning experience for both of you.

Brand Part Deux

“Every act of knowing there enters a passionate contribution of the person knowing what is being known.” -- Michael Polanyi

We did not get a chance to talk about Brand on Wednesday and she creates a decisive argument regarding affect or emotion. To be clear, she does not think that the model presented by Flower and Hayes or other cognitive writing theorists are wrong, “just incomplete” (p. 711). In the larger picture, what Brand is taking on is this notion that expressive discourse and emotions are not valuable, are not a tool that should be used, and something that is certainly NOT scientific. Motivation may be talked about as something to consider in writing education, but often it is pushed out by cognitive concepts as they “…patterns itself after the harder sciences” (p. 708). Affect is simply not taken seriously in writing or research about writing. If affect is used to justify or talk about writing, especially in cognitive theory, it is only to be “…pulled out when other explanations fail” (p. 708). Therefore continuing emotions less-than value. In David Winter’s research, “emotional neutrality is considered morally the most advanced” (p. 708). Brand goes on to critique that being “aloof from one’s emotions” is the “hallmark of the liberally educated” according to Winter (p.708). Therefore something that writers should strive to do.

Brand declares, “But aloofness really is impossible” (p. 708).  She then goes on and creates a list of different items that we are “looking at” and ultimately relate to one another on page 708. Although even she states that her argument may be oversimplified, what she is saying is that all paths lead back to emotion. As humans, everything is grounded in emotion.  Brand says “we need reminding that the very idea of being both human and impartial is a contradiction in terms” (p. 709). She goes on to discuss that logic is not the normal mode of human thought and that we must create language so that we can study and deal with emotion in writing. She does not discredit cognition in writing. Although she does question this computer-centered idea that this is how we think. Cognition is important in the sense-making process, however, “…it is in emotion that this sense finds value” (p. 711).

This article made a lot of sense to me. When I think of powerful and meaningful writers that have inspired the world (Maya Angelou, Gloria Steinem, bell hooks, Jennifer Baumgardner, ANGELA DAVIS…pick your own author), how can emotion not play a part in what they are writing, what inspires them to write, and the political issues that have created the environment of their writing? As far as feminism goes, I do not think it is possible to separate feminist writing/critique/analysis from emotion. The work done to create equality is fueled by emotion. Whether it be writing to further the cause or wearing black because your legislature sucks. To build on this Brand talks about making sense of words. She briefly talks about Vygotsky and how he talks about the sum of all psychological events associated with a particular word is what makes sense. Meaning if I throw out a word like assault, this word may have a similar cognitive meaning for people (similar denotative meaning for people), but the events in your own life will also come into play. Life circumstances will create a different or more or less vivid meaning and picture in your mind or where your mind goes when you hear the word (signifier/signified). And this is where emotion comes into play. This is where we have to combine cognitive reasoning and emotion.

I have never taught composition, however, when I assign projects and papers in class I always say, find something that is meaningful to you. Your best work will be something that you are invested in or interested in, something that you care about. So far, this has been true. The work that I have seen students create on their own and choose has been far better than what I choose for them. Does this have something to do with emotions? I don’t know, but I’d like to think so.

Brand (706-714)

Brand (706-714)

In this essay, Brand discusses the presence of emotion in the writing process.  She states that most writers believe that emotions motivate writing, however, they also believe that emotions do not have much of a role in composing a piece or in the revision of that piece.  Brand, however, believes that emotion must be considered during the composition of a piece of writing.  She says that while critical thinking results in outlines, summaries, deciding what belongs and what doesn’t, etc., it “stops too soon and leaves out too much” (Brand 707).

Brand discusses a cognitive model of writing and the limits of such a model.  She says that composition research needs to look at how much data was lost, what it was, and where it was.  This process would reveal, according to Brand, “imagistic and free associative thinking and connotative commentary” (Brand 709).  Brand believes that this information is necessary to understand the mental process that is behind writing.  There are a few other problems with the model that Brand addresses.  She states that the model suggests that it is possible to distinguish which writers are good and which are weak by looking at their loyalty to the model.   She also states that the model assumes motivation when there is none and that there are not different styles of writing, but rather that one is better than another.  This is not actually true.

In addition to these problems of the cognitive model of writing, Brand also points out the benefits of studying how the emotions affect writing.  She states that by looking at how the emotions effect writing, it may be possible to help people understand why some problems occur during writing and how to solve them.  In addition to this, she also believes that research about “how personality influences the way writers function” (Brand 711) is also important and that it is the future of composition research.  Researching the “affective and cognitive styles through which their writing occurs” is also important to composition research, according to Brand.  This research will help researchers determine why some people are successive in activities related to language while others are not.  While it is known that “effective traits and personality overlap conceptually and empirically” (Brand 711), it was only recently discovered at the time this essay was written that personality had an influence on writing style.  Brand believes that it is important to understand how emotion and cognition work together to form writing.

Bizzell v. Flower/Hayes

The relationship between thought and language is where Patricia Bizzell starts in her article “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know About Writing.” While composition specialists may agree about certain fundamentals regarding the development of thought and language, there is a distinct split when it comes to deciding what part is relevant to composition studies (480). Bizzell uses Flower and Hayes’ inner-directed model of the composition process, which is more concerned about “the structure of language-learning and thinking processes in their earliest state, prior to social influence,” and contrasts/supplements it with the outer-directed model, which is “more interested in the social processes whereby language-learning and thinking capacities are shaped and used in particular communities” (480).

Once she expands upon the primary differences between the inner- and outer-directed models, Bizzell moves onto an explanation of how the two could possibly work together, particularly in the planning and translating stages of Flower and Hayes’ model. Citing Vygotsky’s work, Bizzell contends that planning and translating “should not” be separated, and further that “we should understand them as conditioned by social context” (487). Turning to the work of sociolinguistics, she next cautions composition specialists to avoid the “bottom-to-top” fallacy, or “the notion that a writer first finds meaning, then put it into words, then organizes the words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, etc.,” and consider instead that it is the discourse that gives meaning to the words (487). In acknowledging the role of a contextually situated discourse, and its corresponding interpretive community, as an integral part of the writing process “a whole range of possibilities for making meaning” emerge (487).

Bizzell’s larger critique of inner-directed composition models appears towards the end of the article. She claims that the kind of scientific research Flower and Hayes are so famous for cannot “possess the kind of authoritative certainty” they are searching for because “we cannot formulate universal rules for context-bound activities” (494). Even though inner-directed models can appeal to instructors for various reasons, they ultimately lead instructors away from questioning the political and ethical implications of the job. Discourse analysis would help to “foster responsible inspection” of the “hidden curriculum” in the composition classroom, and ideally lead to students having a “conscious commitment” to world views instead of “unconsciously conforming” (496).

While Bizzell appears at the outset of the article to not want to completely tear apart the Flower and Hayes model, by the end she is making it clear that this model “cannot alone give us a complete picture of the [writing] process” (491). It’s pretty clear she favors an outer-directed model, particularly when it comes to thinking about those some would consider “poor writers.” Inner-directed model composition specialists would consider a student who has difficulties writing or using the language to have a cognitive deficiency, whereas outer-directed thinkers would believe the same to student to simply be unfamiliar with the discourse (488, 489). I find myself leaning more towards Bizzell’s side in this debate if only because some of the underlying assumptions made by Flower and Hayes make me uncomfortable.