Here is my presentation paper. Looking forward to being in discussion about Nathalie Lawhead’s EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OK with everyone tonight.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nMN9QzgBU34ciclw3X-zqxVO_zkchxMjfzsvjHuQIoE/edit?usp=sharing

This reading was by far the most interesting and useful to me. Not only did I relate from a student standpoint but also as a teacher. Reading this reminded me of how I use to think of my writing in middle and high school. I vividly remember being so anxious waiting for the teacher to return my piece with corrections. My insecurity with my writing developed at this stage in my life and evolved into me wiring what I thought my teacher wanted to hear and not what I wanted to actually write. Even now I have more of a “cookie cutter” writing style and still struggle writing pieces that do not have many boundaries. I also often remember not really understanding the comments that were left on my essays. They always seemed so negative to me that I would not ask for clarification. I would go home and try my best to switch a couple words around and then submit my final draft. I could have learned so much more if I actually experienced a proper revision process.

From a teaching standpoint I see a lot that I can improve on with my own students. I completely agree with the claim that sometimes comments can be cryptic and/or vague. Bean`s also makes a point of mentioning how comments can be worded differently to sound more inviting and how mentioning the positive is useful. He also mentions something that really stuck with me. In the text he says, “Revising doesn’t mean just editing; it means “re-visioning”-rethinking, re-conceptualizing, “seeing again” (Beans 321). This is a significant way to explain and revise to students. It is them taking in the information they are trying to convey and making sure this is the best way to convey those thoughts. This made me think about how conferencing with my students would be beneficial. This way I can really see what they are thinking and they can feel like I am coming from a helpful space instead of one derived from criticism. He also mentions the difference between stylistic problems and grammar errors. That is something I have not thought about. A lot of students need assistance with stylistic issues and not necessarily grammar problems.

Overall, I found this reading helpful and an easy yet interesting read. I like readings where I can walk away and feel like I can use what I have read in my everyday life and this was definitely one of them.

I must say, as a non-teacher, this text was brutal to read at the start. But, once it started discussing the different approaches to teaching Rhetoric & Composition, it started to catch my attention as I started recounting some of my worst and best memories as an English student.

As I’ve mentioned plenty of times before, the reason I switched universities was mainly because the curriculum at MSU was getting extremely redundant & mundane and I started to feel like Coraline”s father:

I was tired of reading the same white old men over and over again. We were going through at least 10 novels in one class, which didn’t allow me to digest much anyway. We did discuss important issues as well, but it was always in the context of the 18th to 19th century. I want to learn about my present. So the routine became: read novel, discuss in class, write paper, read novel, discuss in class, write paper, read novel, etc. It gets old quickly.

What really disheartened me was that when I decided to continue my graduate studies in English there, I did not have any opportunity to explore the creative writing aspect. It was all academic and I felt like I was just fulfilling that 5-paragraph essay quota I used to in high school. Thankfully, I survived & saved myself by going through with the decision to switch.

I will say that not every professor was this way, but those that were overshadowed the good ones. Something that Lauer also brings up is the act of revision of student’s work. I can only imagine how tiring it is to be reading countless papers on the same topic, but if I’m writing a 10-page research paper and I receive a disappointing grade on it with ONE revision comment…..how am I supposed to understand where I’m lacking? Of course, I can go to ask for more in-depth feedback & I did. But, it would end in the professor telling me what to write, rather than giving me options on how to improve.

Again, there were good apples too. The professors that thrive on that spontaneous kind of teaching that keeps me alert in a 3 hr class, but it was typically the creative writing professors. Why can’t that teaching be applied to the heavy literature studies classes? In the end, I’m grateful for my time there but even more so that I recognized what was wrong and did something about it.

For class this week we were assigned a reading by Janice M. Lauer entitled Rhetoric and Composition. It was a longer reading, and one rather dense with theory, terminology, and references to other important works in the field of rhetoric and composition studies, but I actually rather enjoyed the read. Although I’m more of a creative writer than one who intends to study writing and its mechanics as a discipline or for the purposes of teaching it, I like reading certain academic papers such as this (which, I know, is strange.) Sometimes I find learning the theory behind stuff fun, so long as I’m able to comprehend the information!

Lauer defines Rhetoric and Composition Studies as, essentially, the study and teaching of writing in different contexts such as civic, workplace, academic, and cross-cultural contexts. It’s a multimodal discipline that utilizes different modes of inquiry such as historical, critical, and theoretical, and it is interdisciplinary in that it draws on the work of other disciplines such as literary theory, sociology, and so forth. Although many people think of literature studies when they hear about English being taught in schools, rhetoric and composition bring the teaching of the study of writing (such as the arrangement and style of a finished writing product) and rhetoric (written and oral discourse) under the umbrella of English classes. This discussion about what English studies are reminded me of a time when, in my Sophomore year of undergrad, I went to a friend’s house for dinner and her father asked me what I was majoring in. When I said English, he said “…What, like English as a second language? Don’t you already speak it?” And then, after learning that wasn’t what I meant, he followed up with “…like…ye olde English?” I wish that I’d had some of Lauer’s definitions on hand, then, because while I barely remember what I’d replied with, it surely was just something along the lines of “uh, no…like…writing? And…books?” In my defense, I was just sort of bamboozled by the question in the moment!

At the time when Rhetoric and Composition Studies was first emerging as its own field (prior to the 70s and 80s, composition was not considered a full-fledged discipline), its scholars were investigating questions such as:

1. Does writing construct or only transmit knowledge?
2. Is writing social or individual?
3. What is the province of rhetoric?
4. Who can be a writer/rhetor?
5. What is the relative importance of ethos, pathos, and logos today?

I think that these are questions that we are still exploring today. For instance, in regards to “is writing social or individual,” I may have thought when I was younger that writing is strictly individual, but as I’ve gotten older I realized that it has very social aspects too (at least for me.) When I’m stumped while writing something, for example, I find that talking it out with some writing buddies can help get me unstuck and/or introduce me to new ideas and possibilities I’d never even thought of. And since writing is (usually) meant to be read, doesn’t that make it inherently social as well? I’m sure this question of social or individual is one we could all have an exploratory conversation about today and still be left with follow-up questions that are worth thinking about and, perhaps, researching if we were so inclined!

Early studies on the composing process aimed to help students get started in their writing process, investigate ideas, consider readers (audience), receive feedback, and revise their work. Previously, grammar had been one of the main concerns with teaching writing. Rhetoric and Composition studies made writing education more about the process. One of the important ideas put forth by these studies was the importance of prewriting, something not previously taught in schools. Even today, I think schools neglect to teach this idea of developing ideas before you begin writing; I was not taught about prewriting until late elementary or perhaps middle school, and in those early days I was very uncomfortable with it and felt it was a waste of time because I was used to simply developing everything in my mind and then getting it down on the paper.

Something else Lauer’s work discussed was the use of discourses in teaching writing. Namely, she mentions how the EDNA (exposition, description, narration, and argumentation) model of teaching writing discourses. It’s very familiar to me, as I remember being asked to write expository essays, descriptive essays, argumentative essays, and so on throughout much of my school (and the occasional fictional piece, which I assume covers narration?) Studies have called the effective of the EDNA model into question, but Lauer stated that it continues to dominate in schools. That was certainly my experience.

I found the paper’s discussion of responding to, revising, and evaluating texts very interesting, as that is a topic that I am considering covering for my in-class presentation later this semester. Different scholars presented in Lauer’s work had insight into different ways to grade besides numerically, many of which seemed to agree that comments on an in-progress piece of writing were much more helpful than comments on an already-graded work and leagues more helpful than a numerical grade with no comments. This makes sense, of course; writing is not like a math test where there are usually a single set of correct answers. Because writing is open-ended and personal, I don’t believe it can simply be graded with numbers indicating “wrong” or “right.” Scholars also noted the importance of including revision as part of the process, which is why comments on in-progress pieces are so important; they allow the student to take them into consideration and make changes to the work before handing it in for a grade. This allows students to be graded more on their process and the evolution of their thoughts and the piece rather than graded on the teacher’s personal opinion of their writing.

One more aspect of the piece that I found very interesting was the discussion of writing diversity and how students should have rights to their own languages. The researchers whose work is referenced in this part championed the idea that different patterns and varieties of language (ie dialects) should be acceptable in school writings. I remember learning about this in an English class in undergrad and how the enforcement of academic English can be a way of gatekeeping that unfortunately bars diversity from the discipline. However, the acceptance of dialect and slang English can be a way to remove this barrier to education and academia.

The conclusion of the paper states that research in modern Rhetoric and Composition studies often involves building on, qualifying, and challenging previous work and arguments in the field. For that reason among others, it’s important that upcoming scholars in the field be familiar with what came before and how those ideas continue to be relevant today.

I want to preface this blog post by saying that while I was intrigued topic of Janice Lauer’s “Rhetoric and Composition” (it’s interesting to think about the history of writing and its progression over time), I feel that the execution was a bit lackluster. I understand the need for professionalism in academic papers, but Lauer came off pretty stuffy and a bit pretentious in this piece. (Especially with all those third person references to herself.)

The parts of this reading that I found the most interesting were the ones that made me think about how I teach writing in my own classroom and the way writing instruction has (and hasn’t) changed from what I remember from my years in high school.

The first section of the text, “The Relationship Between Rhetoric and Composition,” gave me MAJOR flashbacks to my own junior year of high school, when I took AP Lang. One of our main non-fiction texts was Everything’s an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, which was my first introduction to rhetoric. And let me tell you, after a year in that class, if you had asked me what rhetoric was, I still don’t think I’d be able to tell you. My teacher would assign a chapter for us to read, and give us a quiz on it at the beginning of the next class, without ever having discussed the material. We had to memorize information, but never actual put any of it into practice in our own writing. He was a fantastic teacher in every other regard, but we definitely needed more hands-on instruction when it came to this topic. I think my confusing introduction to rhetoric has definitely shaped the way I teach it to my students, and now my crash course on ethos/pathos/logos is one of my favorite lessons all year. It involves a lot of Shaq commercials and me singing “In the Arms of the Angels”. (Badly.)

The section “Studies of Composing Processes” made think about how some facets of writing instruction have remained stagnant over the last few decades, rather than evolving with what we know about how children learn. Lauer states that in the 1960-70s, “Little, if any, attention was paid to helping students get started, investigate ideas, consider readers, receive feedback on drafts, or revise” (112). This is still a huge issue in a lot of high school English classes, for a number of reasons. First, a lot of our curricula don’t have explicit writing instruction built into them, nor are we provided with resources to use. Most writing assignments are analytical essays with a specific prompt, so students don’t get the chance to come up with their own ideas of what to write about. Second, most teachers have a background in the literary rather than the composition side of English, which means they can crank out papers left and right, but that doesn’t always translate into being able to teach writing well. And third, we struggle with time. There is simply never enough of it to accomplish what we need to, so rather than take every writing assignment through the entire writing process, important steps like prewriting and revising are often omitted. It’s been a professional goal of mine for the past few years to spend more time on quality writing instruction. One of the pieces I’m most proud of is our memoir unit, where students spend at least two days per week doing writing exercises to access memories and events from their childhoods, and culminates with them writing a comedic memoir anecdote, in the style of Firoozeh Dumas’s memoir Funny in Farsi. It’s one of the first large writing assignment we do, and I think the students are more likely to engage in quality prewriting and revision since they have a personal investment in what they’re writing.

Finally, in the section “Responding to, Revising, and Evaluating Texts,” Lauer brings up another issue with writing instruction: “In early composition classrooms, students received little advice about revision until after their papers had already been graded, assuming that this advice would carry over to the next papers” (118). I feel that this is still a huge issue in classrooms today, because my experience has been that even when students receive feedback prior to submitting an assignment, they don’t always incorporate that into their revision (if they even revise at all). Many of my students have admitted point blank that they don’t revise their writing before turning it in; many of them don’t even perform a basic spelling/grammar check. This leads to them making the same errors time and time again, rather than internalizing the feedback and using it to improve future writing. So the problem is two-fold: First, how can teachers make an effort to not only make time for revision, but to give valuable feedback to their students? And second, how can teachers get students to buy into the importance of revision as a crucial step in the writing process?

My first impression of High Muck a Muck is that the description of “interactive” paired with the soundscape immediately made me think of website video games I have played in the past. This gave me a little comfort and at this very beginning point I felt better about it than Twelve Blue.

Looking at the entrance and the first few pages, I really enjoy this piece. The soundscape with the pace of the words and art appearing. The interaction is great, but the method of interaction (rolling the mouse over the box in the corner and the titles appear, the dots glowing if looking at the map) is really lovely.

The entire page has been purposely crafted to give you a calming and peaceful feel as you peruse incredibly complex and thoughtful work. It is so hard to not keep saying that this piece is lovely.

I think the question of “what is literature” is really present here in a way simply because the method of interaction is so similar to website video games that have been produced; however, the words, the entire piece is so obviously, in my opinion, literature. Even the art and the way the language interacts with the art is literature, even adding sound to a piece just reminds me of gallery, but then you add this very specific type of interactive-ness and all of the sudden I can understand the question being asked. I think this is very much shows the root of privilege and “prestige” and frankly, snootiness, that is associated with literature.

I really enjoyed this reading. For me as a current graduate student who wants to be a professor post graduation, this was an insightful read as a kind of different outlook or advice to keep in mind. But this also helped me kind of reflect and connect with the reading as well.

Growing up in middle school and high school, when we were in lack of better words, forced to write papers for our classes they would give us the topic, the ideal structure, but concluded that we follow the rubric. If we failed to do so, our overall final grade would be based off that rubric. Good or bad, that depended on the student. There was no level of coaching or even guidance to help me or other students write the paper. And final comments centered around referring back to the rubric. Undergraduate classes were the same. I have written so many papers for myself and my friends and after submission I would just wait for my graded, look at it, and move on to the next paper.

Lack of coaching and guidance and even constructive criticism always left me wondering if I was even doing a good job, if anyone was even reading what I wrote, and if I was really growing. I think those three elements are important and key in a student’s life who is learning and going to school to become better at their craft and grow.

I actually found this reading to be interesting and somewhat intriguing. I never really considered how the writing courses we take now came to be. It actually makes sense that writing and teaching writing has evolved so much over time. I think even with all the branches of writing we are exposed to and have courses for now we can still expand more.

In the “Studies of Composing Process” Lauer talks about pre writing and how at one point that was never considered or taught as part of the writing process. That’s honestly amazed me. I cannot imagine writing actual pieces without some sort of brainstorming or think and jot. Also, the pre writing experience is so different for everyone there is no way to conform everyone to a certain pre writing style.

I noticed the idea of keeping the writing process and teaching writing in a specific way as a common concept throughout this reading. These profound scholars were constantly putting limitation on the way to write. The only way it evolved was other scholars to daring to suggest and study something different. I don’t think that writing can be restrictive. It only makes sense that with time it will expand even more than it already has.

Another thought I had while reading was about how writing is taught in school. In the text it says, “Here scholars argued that the reigning conception of genre was text-based:students learned only that formal features of genres like letters, resumes, and book reports” (Lauer 116). I think even now we need to normalize writing socially. Students should be able to do both. Maybe there wouldn’t be such a sigma around Language Arts and English if students learned to write in both a social /relatable way but also formal. This also made me think about the textbooks we use in school. Lauer mentions that as well. I know personally I hate the textbook I have to use in my class. It’s not the content within the book but the issue of only giving one way to do something. Students respond to different things and not everyone thinks, processes and learns the same.

These articles went so well hand and hand. To start off, Bud Hunt makes valid points and brings up issues I haven’t given thought to enough. The debate of paper vs. screen has been around since I’ve started school really. Still, I’ve always felt like my generation is existing in this transitional period. But when Hunt talks about this debate, he points out that it’s really no debate at all. It’s really about the coexisting of the two and how the use of screen & paper are beneficial depending on our goal.

With my writing, I’m definitely a paper kind of writer. I can’t open a google doc/word doc/notes app/etc. and sit down to write something. I really think it’s because I associate that act with academic writing, my least favorite. It has to do with research and quotes, which are all things I pull from the internet. If I do any creative writing on a laptop or something, it’s because I have a solid foundation I’m working from and I’m really just editing/refining the piece.

Writing creatively onto paper just feels more freeing and it captivates my focus so easily. I also loooove physically seeing the spiderweb that forms after I’ve thought-vomited on the paper. It’s kind of motivating for me to see how fast & active my thoughts move from one to the next and I do think it’s something you can only see with paper. Yes, they have apple pencils and the pages app, which does the same but you simply can’t recreate the sound of your thoughts being transferred to real life. I rest my case.

But again! This just reiterates Hunt’s point. I do use both digital & physical, but I chose which is better for whatever writing task I’m taking on.

With that being said, it’s pretty clear how much I loved Lynda Barry’s work. I mean it’s the definition of the spiderweb I mentioned before! I read Hunt’s article first and when I read Barry’s, I was just like “mhmm, yup, exactly” the entire time.

The idea of journaling is not so new to me, but the ways I’ve approached it has changed drastically throughout the years. On my bookshelf, the oldest journal I have is from 2015 (junior year of high school). Very fitting time. That year I had my favorite English teacher that everyone else hated because she made us Really Write. She was the one who motivated me to go for my English degree. She saw my potential no matter how hidden away I tried to be and it felt good.

So I started my first journal. Looking at those old journals has become a once-a-year routine because of how cringe, yet endearing those entries are. I can tell I was so conscious of my thoughts and it made me afraid to write any honesty. What if so and so reads this? What if I die and this is gets released to everyone I’ve ever known? Typical 16 year old mentality. Yet it isn’t. I still catch myself doing this today when I start my journals. It’s like I have to break them in.

“Every time I start a new journal, I feel like the first entry needs to be clean-cut & fixed. Like if these entries were all that my loved ones had after I passed, I want them to start on this entry and feel like their reading my unpublished autobiography. But that’s never the case.”

That’s my first entry from my current journal. It’s hard to kick bad habits. But! I’m aware that I do it so I actively try to write more honestly and vulnerably as I move on to future entries. Once I’ve reached the middle to end, it’s drawings, collages, and whatever medium I felt like trying that day.

Reading these articles together gave me better insight as to how I approach certain types of writing or even creativity in general. I’ve always tried to be mindful of this in order to help me branch out, but reading about other writers’ creative processes is comforting & inspiring.