Group items tagged

After getting past the awesomeness of the fact that the author's name is Magnifico, this article concerns itself with issues of audience in writing. Much of the article is a literature review summing up the current research in the area and how it relates to her future research. Some of the areas examined are the cognitive and socio-cultural analyses of the effect of audience on writing. She finds that the audience can be a source of motivation and that writing with the audience in mind can inspire new comers to ask themselves the same sorts of questions as expert writers, such as what is it that they want to say, to whom are they saying it, and how are they going to convey this message.

This article describes a study similar to one that we read about with the 10 UCLA students, except these students in the study are ESL students; something I want to follow with this thread. This study basically shows that L1 and L2 writers had many strategies in common, the main difference being that L2 writers weren't as concerned as the L1 writers in correcting their work, their main focus being, just get it out! We have discussed in class about writing for a specific purpose and how you audience affects your writing; this study shows that ESL students' composing strategies were not inhibited by their purpose or audience.

The article written by ERIC (The Educational Resources Information Center) which I must assume is a part of George Washington Univ. Washington DC. Graduate School of Education and Human Development is a broken down "checklist" of sorts. It addresses six different concerns with grading student's writing. One such concern is one I think we all might have asked ourselves at one point in time, "Why do professors need to construct effective writing assignments?"(3). The answer given to the question was interesting in that it pushed hard for effective peer reviews. While some peer review is helpful the article did address the fact that most students are unaware of how to give effective peer review. The basics of the article concerning peer review are that professors need to help students learn by example and explanation. I thought it interesting as well that the article addressed how professors can avoid giving a grade that they will have to defend after the fact, a problem for professors who grade writing without a series of rewriting stages. The solution offered is, that's right, stages of rewrites with the professor holding off giving a grade for as long as possible. One important idea brought up in the article is that "…the writing assignment should include necessary information about audience and purpose, the two pillars of writing."(3) I often wonder how we focus on the first and not the second. As the article states one of the pillars of writing is purpose, yet we seem to habitually focus on the audience and not give student's a purpose for their writing.

This article is geared more towards translation but I've found that many of the same principles of translation can be applied when trying to write academically. We are doing nothing more than trying to translate our thoughts and complex ideas and put them into the language of academic writing - usually a foreign language to us. Because I am writing on cultural barriers to academic writing, I thought it would be useful to see how other minds work. In this way we might be more empathetic to our students and it might aid our diagnostics as well. The author, Dirk Siepmann, compares the academic writing of English, French and German. "For a long time the idea has been around that the 'spirit' of a language exerts a formative influence on its speakers and writers" (Siepmann 1). This influence is something that educators need to be aware of when teaching writing. How can you help transition students into a different academic writing culture without making them give up their own? Siepmann also discusses what he refers to as "Intellectual Styles." He calls these the "Saxon", the "Teutonic", the "Gallic" and the "Nipponic". He has derived these terms based on writers' ability to organize thought, target audience, relationship of writer to audience and other criteria. The author also talks about the differences in learning systems and what is expected in those learning systems.

Digital Discourse: Composing with media in the writing classroom Karen Gocsik This article, posted under the writing and rhetoric section of the Dartmouth University website, discusses the potential multi-media assignments and teaching methods can have on new-age students. Gocsik feels that the literacy of the screen should become a third type of literacy behind oral and print. The nuances in composing a webpage or video reveal similar elements to that of constructing an essay. Gocsik makes the point that making a video project teaches students how to: come up with explicit vs. implied theses, structure according to the expectations of the audience and conventions of a particular medium or genre, and how to craft arguments out of a polophony of voices while creating a multimedia voice of one's own (Gocsik). Multimedia devices such as blogs or webpage's can be used to assist in the bigger project of a video collaboration.

This article is about using ellipsis in writing and in creativity in classrooms and books. They start out with how it can leave an audience hanging or getting them to think cognitively about what is being asked on a certain thought. This is in opposition to the traditional teaching methods of lecturing and providing answers to facts. This also helps promote creativity in student and teacher learning in classrooms. The teacher can then also help promote scaffolding the students to the main topic. Using this style helps students to think about why and how they learn and write. The best thing that I got out of this was how this gets students involved personally in learning and helps students participate in classrooms and writing.

Ellipsis defined how?

I ran across this article last year while browsing through journals in the library and thought it was humorous. I thought of it again when we read Bartholomae. In this article by Philip Eubanks and John D. Schaeffer, the authors first set out to define what bullshit is, then discuss the ways in which bullshit is an aspect of academic rhetoric. The humorous (and most likely intended) irony is that all the while they are writing in a very traditional academic style which is, in and of itself, often associated with the very claims of bullshit they are examining. The main idea is that it matters not whether the content of the bullshit itself is true or false, but that bullshitters misrepresent themselves and their intentions (375). Eubanks and Schaeffer examine various types and purposes of bullshit, as well as various reasons one might engage in bullshitting, including representing a 'constructed self', gamesmanship, pleasure, reputation and superiority. "To sum up, prototypical bullshit has to do with a purposeful misrepresentation of self, has the quality of gamesmanship, and . . . is at least potentially a lie"(380). In the second half of the article, the authors examine academic writing, determining what features make it prototypical and how those features might be construed to be bullshit. One important aspect is the use of jargon, which seems to many non-academic readers to merely confuse for the purpose of elevating the author's status. "Often academic writers could be clearer but prefer to serve up something that sounds like bullshit" (382). They point out that students imitate this style in their own writing, and are rewarded for it. In addressing the issue of audience, the authors make a statement that is very reminiscent of Lave and Wenger's communities of practice in Situated Learning: "much academic publication, especially by young scholars, aims to qualify the author for membership in a group of specialists" (382). As we discu

After reading our Homework assignment I was truly interested in the true "America Style" of writing. According to this article some styles of the American writing include directness, audience,clear examples, and the uses of sources. I've witnessed many non-native speakers of English struggle in their writing due to their cultural writing expectations. In this article it shows that for those students they offer tutoring one on one, workshops, help sheets and multilingual readers. This made me wonder as to what techniques are the most beneficial for American students struggling in writing and what techniques help native speakers the most. There are different modes of writing as well and each will change depending on the class subject.

This is a video I found on YouTube discussing freshman composition. The video's main focus is to get the students' perspective on the class and to discover what it is that they are wanting to get out of the class and how they view the class in general. The students that were interviewed explained how it is hard to be themselves in their writing and they get caught up in trying to make their writing cater to what the teacher wants. One student, discussing her writing, says she feels she has to "alter it to fit the teacher" and that in class, they aren't writing for themselves but writing "for the teacher." The video goes into detail about the purpose of freshmen composition, it gives examples of all sorts of paper assignments and guidelines that the teacher wants to be followed. Students were then interviewed on their perspectives and noted that the guidelines were helpful and kept them on track. Others felt it could be a little stifling and hard to be themselves in a paper. The video went on to explain how writing is different from any other class because it is an example of the students' own identity, their ideas. There's a sense of vulnerability to it that is not seen in other classes like math or history for example. I found this to be interesting, I wish the video had gone into a little more depth but I liked seeing the freshmen's perspectives. It would have been better if more students were interviewed too. Definitely something worth checking out though!