All posts by Devon

blog 7

James Paul gee; Ch 4

“Who’s-doing-what’s”:
1.      Social languages – different kinds of languages that allow people to identify (“express”) the different social roles we have. So this means that social language is more specified/ narrow as far as content goes. It also seems to be more goal-oriented (the goal is to use the specialized language/ writings to convey your social identity).
2.      Conversations – important to note that Conversations is proper here (capital C). Conversations are, then, different from conversations, in that Conversations are generally related to hot-button or socially prevalent issues.  A Conversation is a recognizable debate within a social setting, with recognizable “sides” to each argument. Furthermore, it is easy to figure out “what kind of people” take what kind of stance in any given argument.
3.      Intertextuality – in this context, “intertextuality” does not have a specialized definition. Intertextuality is when spoken or (more likely) written word quotes or refers to another text either directly or indirectly.
4.      Discourse – not comprised of language alone. Rather a Discourse (capital D) is comprised of words, actions, thoughts, feeling, setting, etc.

Thoughts: Interested in seeing the difference between a “social language” and a “conversation.”

Social language example: the aspirin bottle. The stylistic choices (caps and italics) and language used in the directions conveys more than just a message; rather it is also conveying who is speaking to us, and what it is they do or don’t want us doing (who’s-doing-what’s). The important messages are stressed using these features, while the less important/ standard instructions are paced very plainly in the middle with generic language. The point of this section is to analyze how delivery of a message can impact how the message makes us feel (very “it’s not what you say, but how you say it”). The text states that the stressed sections are spoken by a “lawyer” and the unstressed are spoken by a “doctor” but I disagree. It all seemed like a doctor to me.

“Social Languages”:

Who-doing-what = social languages in short hand.

The example of the “riverboat” – Jane displays two different versions of herself when she explains the story of Abagail and Gregory to two different audiences. To her parents, she conveys the persona of someone who is intelligent, reflective and critical. To her boyfriend, Jane is emotional and informal (the who of who’s-doing-what’s). The different languages she uses indicates the what she is trying to convey.

Parents (who): intelligent, reflective, critical individual // (what): a logical analysis of a philosophical situation
Boyfriend (who): girlfriend // (what) how upsetting such an amoral and hypocritical situation* can be 


            * I thought it was interesting that Jane included herself in her assessment to her boyfriend: “I should hope, if I ever did that to see you, you would shoot the guy.” Not only is Jane identifying with Abagail, but also projecting expected (gender?) social norms onto her boyfriend.
Scientific journal example – shows how social language becomes specialized, and why it matters.
“Two aspects of grammar”

Grammar has two (fairly uniform) aspects: traditional units (nouns, verbs, etc.) and patterns (“rules”) for connecting them. However, the exact usage varies, depending on the social language context. Some audiences receive certain grammatical patterns better than others. (Personal example: I’ve noticed scientific-based writing usually utilizes longer sentences, even to the point of run-in sentences.)  This is referred to as a “collocational pattern.”(Collocational patterns aren’t limited to just language.)

“An example”:

“‘Context’ determines meaning (informal)” while the meaning of language in formal contexts is more explicit and withstanding (“decontextualized”). However, I don’t think there is anything that is completely void of context.



I feel that 2c and 2d are not interpretations that people would get out of this noun. I don’t see how [lung cancer] differs from [lung] [cancer]. I really don’t think that it does honestly. Even when he explains it, it still sounds like he’s trying too hard to make meaning out of something that isn’t there. Furthermore, the issue of “correlation” and “causation” seems like he is splitting a hair. The only plausible variance in meaning, I think, is the phrase “increase in smoking.” However, I don’t think this really proves anything simply because it seems like he’s taking the sentence out of its own context. I don’t think breaking down a sentence in this way really reveals alternative meanings, because if that were the case, then every sentence would be as ambiguous, and I just don’t believe this is the case. I also don’t think being privy to this conversation (Conversation?) in the past helps eliminate alternative meanings. I think there are some combinations of words that are just as explicit as they seem to be. There are words that can have dualistic meanings (hello, synonyms), however, I don’t think speaking and conveying a message is as complex as this example would have us believe.   
    Q1: After reading the example of Sentence 1, what are your thoughts on linguistic ambiguity?
“Big ‘C’ conversations”:

External factors like “themes” and “values” and “beliefs” often play large roles in Conversations.

“Intertextuality”

The example:


Intertextuality here refers to the findings of various “scholarly articles.”
Intertextuality involves a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the audience’s receptiveness of indirect references (when mentioned indirectly). Or, in the case of the mandate, will alleviate any uncertainty, as sheer mention of other works carries enough prestige to ignore direct quotation.
Interesting point about the use of quotation marks, and how they can be used to insinuate that a certain phrase should be interpreted a certain way within another text. As far as research goes, this seems like something teachers and students often disagree about—whether a source is really useful to the overall paper or not; specifically, using a quote out of context in order to meet the mandatory source limit.


Also an interesting point about Black English being viewed as a second language (of sorts) and that these students should be entitled to financial aid as bilingual students. (This, I think, is a much better example of multiple languages and multiple meanings than the “lung cancer” sentence.)

blog 7

James Paul gee; Ch 4

“Who’s-doing-what’s”:
1.      Social languages – different kinds of languages that allow people to identify (“express”) the different social roles we have. So this means that social language is more specified/ narrow as far as content goes. It also seems to be more goal-oriented (the goal is to use the specialized language/ writings to convey your social identity).
2.      Conversations – important to note that Conversations is proper here (capital C). Conversations are, then, different from conversations, in that Conversations are generally related to hot-button or socially prevalent issues.  A Conversation is a recognizable debate within a social setting, with recognizable “sides” to each argument. Furthermore, it is easy to figure out “what kind of people” take what kind of stance in any given argument.
3.      Intertextuality – in this context, “intertextuality” does not have a specialized definition. Intertextuality is when spoken or (more likely) written word quotes or refers to another text either directly or indirectly.
4.      Discourse – not comprised of language alone. Rather a Discourse (capital D) is comprised of words, actions, thoughts, feeling, setting, etc.

Thoughts: Interested in seeing the difference between a “social language” and a “conversation.”

Social language example: the aspirin bottle. The stylistic choices (caps and italics) and language used in the directions conveys more than just a message; rather it is also conveying who is speaking to us, and what it is they do or don’t want us doing (who’s-doing-what’s). The important messages are stressed using these features, while the less important/ standard instructions are paced very plainly in the middle with generic language. The point of this section is to analyze how delivery of a message can impact how the message makes us feel (very “it’s not what you say, but how you say it”). The text states that the stressed sections are spoken by a “lawyer” and the unstressed are spoken by a “doctor” but I disagree. It all seemed like a doctor to me.

“Social Languages”:

Who-doing-what = social languages in short hand.

The example of the “riverboat” – Jane displays two different versions of herself when she explains the story of Abagail and Gregory to two different audiences. To her parents, she conveys the persona of someone who is intelligent, reflective and critical. To her boyfriend, Jane is emotional and informal (the who of who’s-doing-what’s). The different languages she uses indicates the what she is trying to convey.

Parents (who): intelligent, reflective, critical individual // (what): a logical analysis of a philosophical situation
Boyfriend (who): girlfriend // (what) how upsetting such an amoral and hypocritical situation* can be 


            * I thought it was interesting that Jane included herself in her assessment to her boyfriend: “I should hope, if I ever did that to see you, you would shoot the guy.” Not only is Jane identifying with Abagail, but also projecting expected (gender?) social norms onto her boyfriend.
Scientific journal example – shows how social language becomes specialized, and why it matters.
“Two aspects of grammar”

Grammar has two (fairly uniform) aspects: traditional units (nouns, verbs, etc.) and patterns (“rules”) for connecting them. However, the exact usage varies, depending on the social language context. Some audiences receive certain grammatical patterns better than others. (Personal example: I’ve noticed scientific-based writing usually utilizes longer sentences, even to the point of run-in sentences.)  This is referred to as a “collocational pattern.”(Collocational patterns aren’t limited to just language.)

“An example”:

“‘Context’ determines meaning (informal)” while the meaning of language in formal contexts is more explicit and withstanding (“decontextualized”). However, I don’t think there is anything that is completely void of context.



I feel that 2c and 2d are not interpretations that people would get out of this noun. I don’t see how [lung cancer] differs from [lung] [cancer]. I really don’t think that it does honestly. Even when he explains it, it still sounds like he’s trying too hard to make meaning out of something that isn’t there. Furthermore, the issue of “correlation” and “causation” seems like he is splitting a hair. The only plausible variance in meaning, I think, is the phrase “increase in smoking.” However, I don’t think this really proves anything simply because it seems like he’s taking the sentence out of its own context. I don’t think breaking down a sentence in this way really reveals alternative meanings, because if that were the case, then every sentence would be as ambiguous, and I just don’t believe this is the case. I also don’t think being privy to this conversation (Conversation?) in the past helps eliminate alternative meanings. I think there are some combinations of words that are just as explicit as they seem to be. There are words that can have dualistic meanings (hello, synonyms), however, I don’t think speaking and conveying a message is as complex as this example would have us believe.   
    Q1: After reading the example of Sentence 1, what are your thoughts on linguistic ambiguity?
“Big ‘C’ conversations”:

External factors like “themes” and “values” and “beliefs” often play large roles in Conversations.

“Intertextuality”

The example:


Intertextuality here refers to the findings of various “scholarly articles.”
Intertextuality involves a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the audience’s receptiveness of indirect references (when mentioned indirectly). Or, in the case of the mandate, will alleviate any uncertainty, as sheer mention of other works carries enough prestige to ignore direct quotation.
Interesting point about the use of quotation marks, and how they can be used to insinuate that a certain phrase should be interpreted a certain way within another text. As far as research goes, this seems like something teachers and students often disagree about—whether a source is really useful to the overall paper or not; specifically, using a quote out of context in order to meet the mandatory source limit.


Also an interesting point about Black English being viewed as a second language (of sorts) and that these students should be entitled to financial aid as bilingual students. (This, I think, is a much better example of multiple languages and multiple meanings than the “lung cancer” sentence.)

blog 6

“A Teacher-Research Group in Action”

The idea that a teacher needs “structure” seems kind of silly to me, since there really isn’t anything orderly about teaching. From what I understand, it’s really a very hectic profession. But maybe that’s why these teachers craved structure within the seminar?

“debates they seemed to be carrying on internally” very relatable

I was kind of surprised that the “findings” section spent as much time discussing structure and deadlines as it did. I’m also surprised that the experimenters were surprised. The findings, I thought, were fairly obvious.

 “Until teachers start reading research, doing research, they won’t be a profession. If they’re grounded on lesson plans, that’s where they’re going to stay.” The idea that research enhances the ability to teach makes sense; research (as displayed in this experiment) helps us not only improve our knowledge through the ideas of others, but also helps us learn to think independently about something. Self-reflection, source analysis, critical thinking skills, idea generation—all benefits of research that can (and have been) applied to the classroom, like a guide book.  Meanwhile, non-researchers seem to simply be following a step-by-step instruction manual.

It makes me kind of sad to think these teachers did not feel very confident about the significance of their work, and that it did not count as research. This, I think, says a lot about how we view and value research. That research has a very “prestigious” and “elite” reputation in academia.

“The Teacher as Researcher”

“too tired to plow through jargon, charts and statistics…” It’s nice to know that teachers too often find scholarly/ research works hard (and boring) to navigate. But really, I think the best way to research (and learn in general) is by practicing, by doing. Hands-on experience is always better.

“teachers do not stand back and look…without also suggesting solutions…”

On the section describing the misspelling of “aggressive,” I can’t believe a child would be so trusting of their teacher that they would assume the dictionary was wrong and the teacher was correct. Can you imagine someone believing you to be that all-knowing? I can’t even get my co-workers to believe me when I tell them we’ve run out of something. And then the students tease her about it! I personally think this is hysterical, and it kind of makes me regret not getting my k – 8 teaching cert. But ultimately, I like that her mistake resulted in her letting the students take control and “teach” her some things. This is a really great approach to (1) making/ correcting a mistake, (2) teaching/ encouraging self-reflection within your students and (3) challenging the traditional “student/teacher” roles. I think letting your students take the wheel once in a while is really enlightening for everyone involved—especially when they are younger. It is so important that children retain their autonomy and creativity in classroom settings, lest they lose those qualities in lieu for blind obedience of the instructor (which is honestly my biggest fear for younger generations).

And supporting each other’s annoying habits for the sake of writing? Precious.

I thought this article was super cute and seemed a bit more though provoking than the previous one I read. I also liked how the students were taken into consideration here, although the focus is supposed to be the teacher. I liked that the “research method” was the same between the two.

“Developing a Definition of Teacher Research”

“teacher research is a public endeavor” in that their products benefit the greater good?

I like the idea that teacher researchers bounce ideas off of students as well as co-workers; the idea that we’re all learning from each other seems like what academia was supposedto be.

The versatility of a teacher’s “research context” is so interesting to me, as every student is unique, and every class will be unique because of that and because of thatthe work produced will always be original and cannot ever be replicated. 

blog 6

“A Teacher-Research Group in Action”

The idea that a teacher needs “structure” seems kind of silly to me, since there really isn’t anything orderly about teaching. From what I understand, it’s really a very hectic profession. But maybe that’s why these teachers craved structure within the seminar?

“debates they seemed to be carrying on internally” very relatable

I was kind of surprised that the “findings” section spent as much time discussing structure and deadlines as it did. I’m also surprised that the experimenters were surprised. The findings, I thought, were fairly obvious.

 “Until teachers start reading research, doing research, they won’t be a profession. If they’re grounded on lesson plans, that’s where they’re going to stay.” The idea that research enhances the ability to teach makes sense; research (as displayed in this experiment) helps us not only improve our knowledge through the ideas of others, but also helps us learn to think independently about something. Self-reflection, source analysis, critical thinking skills, idea generation—all benefits of research that can (and have been) applied to the classroom, like a guide book.  Meanwhile, non-researchers seem to simply be following a step-by-step instruction manual.

It makes me kind of sad to think these teachers did not feel very confident about the significance of their work, and that it did not count as research. This, I think, says a lot about how we view and value research. That research has a very “prestigious” and “elite” reputation in academia.

“The Teacher as Researcher”

“too tired to plow through jargon, charts and statistics…” It’s nice to know that teachers too often find scholarly/ research works hard (and boring) to navigate. But really, I think the best way to research (and learn in general) is by practicing, by doing. Hands-on experience is always better.

“teachers do not stand back and look…without also suggesting solutions…”

On the section describing the misspelling of “aggressive,” I can’t believe a child would be so trusting of their teacher that they would assume the dictionary was wrong and the teacher was correct. Can you imagine someone believing you to be that all-knowing? I can’t even get my co-workers to believe me when I tell them we’ve run out of something. And then the students tease her about it! I personally think this is hysterical, and it kind of makes me regret not getting my k – 8 teaching cert. But ultimately, I like that her mistake resulted in her letting the students take control and “teach” her some things. This is a really great approach to (1) making/ correcting a mistake, (2) teaching/ encouraging self-reflection within your students and (3) challenging the traditional “student/teacher” roles. I think letting your students take the wheel once in a while is really enlightening for everyone involved—especially when they are younger. It is so important that children retain their autonomy and creativity in classroom settings, lest they lose those qualities in lieu for blind obedience of the instructor (which is honestly my biggest fear for younger generations).

And supporting each other’s annoying habits for the sake of writing? Precious.

I thought this article was super cute and seemed a bit more though provoking than the previous one I read. I also liked how the students were taken into consideration here, although the focus is supposed to be the teacher. I liked that the “research method” was the same between the two.

“Developing a Definition of Teacher Research”

“teacher research is a public endeavor” in that their products benefit the greater good?

I like the idea that teacher researchers bounce ideas off of students as well as co-workers; the idea that we’re all learning from each other seems like what academia was supposedto be.

The versatility of a teacher’s “research context” is so interesting to me, as every student is unique, and every class will be unique because of that and because of thatthe work produced will always be original and cannot ever be replicated. 

blog 5

“Theory, Practice, and the Bridge Between The Methods Course and Reflective Rhetoric”

“That prospective teachers often bring with them a model of a teacher they want to be, their favorite teacher or the one they wished they’d had.” This is very interesting and very true, in my opinion.

“Question: Do “better” students tend to favor a particular kind of model? Do all models require revision?” I think “successful” students have learning / self-teaching models of their own that help them adapt to the models of their teachers. Knowing yourself as a learner is an invaluable skill that many students do not possess; more importantly, I do not believe students are encouraged to learn about themselves in this way. I think schools are more interested in dictating what needs to be done to take time out and explain that not every model works for every students, no matter how good it may be. Instead it’s more of a “if you don’t get it, then you are dumb and that’s nobody’s problem but your own” kind of mentality.

“That better students tend to focus on the curriculum and the students; weaker ones tend to focus on themselves.” This makes sense; it is difficult to consider a / the bigger picture when you are still struggling with the smaller one.

“Question: what activities, what questions can help weaker students move outside the self? Or is there, in fact, a way to accelerate such readiness?” I think this readiness comes from a better understanding of the material. I don’t think it is a matter of introspectiveness, but rather a matter of basic skill acquisition. Sure there are things teachers can do to help a student, but there are no epiphany inducing questions that can speed up the process. It’s all about the bigger picture. But in the case of weaker learners, it is more like a puzzle. Each lesson/ objective is a puzzle piece. The bigger picture won’t matter to you until you figure out where this piece is supposed to go.

“That in many ways this course is an exercise in identity and identification.” Probably also some internalization and motivation examination as well.

“this takes the form of wanting to replicate another teacher, or seeing a student so much as a version of an earlier self of ours that we can’t see the student in any other way” I think the assumption that a lot of teachers are replicating a past personal experience is at least moderately sound, however, I don't like the implication here that this desire to "redo the past, but in a better way" blinds teachers from seeing their students as individuals. 

“Question: What other kinds of reflection should we include? Toward what end?” I think that refection is so vague that any kind suffices.

“When reflection “works,” it raises as many questions as it answers, perhaps more” isn’t that the whole point to reflection in the first place?


I feel the talk of her students was drawn out and didn’t really help prove her points. I think she could have reduced the length of this chapter and still gotten her message across (especially that bit of “fluff” about the weather and her students typing). However, I felt she raised some good questions. I think I would have liked to see her own answers to these questions, but they were good enough on their own that they got me thinking as well. 

blog 5

“Theory, Practice, and the Bridge Between The Methods Course and Reflective Rhetoric”

“That prospective teachers often bring with them a model of a teacher they want to be, their favorite teacher or the one they wished they’d had.” This is very interesting and very true, in my opinion.

“Question: Do “better” students tend to favor a particular kind of model? Do all models require revision?” I think “successful” students have learning / self-teaching models of their own that help them adapt to the models of their teachers. Knowing yourself as a learner is an invaluable skill that many students do not possess; more importantly, I do not believe students are encouraged to learn about themselves in this way. I think schools are more interested in dictating what needs to be done to take time out and explain that not every model works for every students, no matter how good it may be. Instead it’s more of a “if you don’t get it, then you are dumb and that’s nobody’s problem but your own” kind of mentality.

“That better students tend to focus on the curriculum and the students; weaker ones tend to focus on themselves.” This makes sense; it is difficult to consider a / the bigger picture when you are still struggling with the smaller one.

“Question: what activities, what questions can help weaker students move outside the self? Or is there, in fact, a way to accelerate such readiness?” I think this readiness comes from a better understanding of the material. I don’t think it is a matter of introspectiveness, but rather a matter of basic skill acquisition. Sure there are things teachers can do to help a student, but there are no epiphany inducing questions that can speed up the process. It’s all about the bigger picture. But in the case of weaker learners, it is more like a puzzle. Each lesson/ objective is a puzzle piece. The bigger picture won’t matter to you until you figure out where this piece is supposed to go.

“That in many ways this course is an exercise in identity and identification.” Probably also some internalization and motivation examination as well.

“this takes the form of wanting to replicate another teacher, or seeing a student so much as a version of an earlier self of ours that we can’t see the student in any other way” I think the assumption that a lot of teachers are replicating a past personal experience is at least moderately sound, however, I don't like the implication here that this desire to "redo the past, but in a better way" blinds teachers from seeing their students as individuals. 

“Question: What other kinds of reflection should we include? Toward what end?” I think that refection is so vague that any kind suffices.

“When reflection “works,” it raises as many questions as it answers, perhaps more” isn’t that the whole point to reflection in the first place?


I feel the talk of her students was drawn out and didn’t really help prove her points. I think she could have reduced the length of this chapter and still gotten her message across (especially that bit of “fluff” about the weather and her students typing). However, I felt she raised some good questions. I think I would have liked to see her own answers to these questions, but they were good enough on their own that they got me thinking as well. 

blog 4

"Theory, Research, Practice, Work" (ch 1):

Braddock's belief that composition should inherently be research-based and knowledge-making is how I was taught to write, so despite our many discussions on stylistic variations, I tend to agree to a certain degree. I also think that the view of composition being a “classroom activity” still persists.

While reading, I kept thinking that the distinction between theorists and practitioners was an outdated point of view. Every teacher in our department at Kean, I think, is at least moderately active in the field, which means they are all doers, right? However, the more I thought about it, the more I began to think there is a bit of a divide within English departments: literary people and composition people. Is this the modern reincarnation of the theorist/practitioner divide?

“departments become nations” an interesting, and very true, lens.

“reifies social detachment and introversion” a good point. We discussed this a bit in our other class: specifically the idea of crowd sourcing, and how universities tend to frown upon collaboration.

“The rest between composition and literature” it seems I was thinking in the right direction earlier. And that last sentence about Shakespeare/ the minds of 18 year olds was really powerful, I think. And it kind of gets me worked up: the idea that a lit professor, who recycles a worn-out analysis of the same book every semester, is more prestigious than a comp teacher, who constantly has to change and adapt their methodology to cater to their students, is really insulting. Also, I am seeing that I too subscribe to that subconscious rift between comp and lit. As a comp person, I noticed that I have taken a slight offense to being referred to as a mere “working class” member in my own field. Not to say there is anything wrong with a “working class” in the grander scale of society; however, here I am offended because a comp person will do just as much work as a lit person (maybe even more) but according to the chapter, will receive less credit.

Composing Composition Studies Scholarly Publication and the Practice of Discipline” (ch 2)

“in order to demonstrate their apparently equal importance and self-evident interrelationships” enjoyable little bit of sarcasm here.

“faculty can rather efficiently be sorted into categories of “productive” and “unproductive,” with comparatively little or no attention given to teaching” why do I feel this is still true?

“productive work” it is weird to think that some work is unproductive. It’s even weirder to think that in this context “productive” probably means “well-liked” among more prestigious colleagues.

“Given the related assumption that the very purpose of teaching is to disseminate the “findings” of a field’s research to students…professional-client relationship between researcher and teacher” I guess this makes sense. Although the role of researcher and teacher is, I think, more blurred than ever before. It is expected for one person to fulfill these two roles now. But for some reason a teacher cannot disseminate their own findings to their students (who better to do it too?), but rather, teachers are still forced to discuss the findings of others. Which somehow maintains that professional/client relationship, and probably even maintains the “working class” as well. It’s actually really interesting how complex this issue has become even though it hasn’t changed that much.

“English departments were formed, primarily based on a desire to study fiction and poetry in the vernacular” that’s an interesting little fact. And also explains why “English” is stereotypically seen as a literary field despite the emergence of the composition field.

I like that research was a considered a “privilege” when now we see it as a burden.  I wonder how the pioneers of this field, who fought so hard to make the “right” to research so accessible to everyone would feel, knowing people actually dread research projects? (Maybe they too would be annoyed by all the hoops we are required to jump through in order to research.)

political exercise by the institutionally motivated” isn’t everything?

“publishing academics depend on the degraded status of composition “practitioners” to justify their claims to superiority” this is so ironic and dramatic. Now I see why English used to belong to the Theatre department. (It also seems to mirror the way politics work even today.)


“producing text authorized by the university’s class-making system” I’m not sure I agree with this. I think that professors now have more right to conduct their own research and write their own findings than ever before. There are some teachers who even write their own textbooks. Perhaps the restriction mentioned here is the inability to teach their own findings (as I mentioned before)?

blog 4

"Theory, Research, Practice, Work" (ch 1):

Braddock's belief that composition should inherently be research-based and knowledge-making is how I was taught to write, so despite our many discussions on stylistic variations, I tend to agree to a certain degree. I also think that the view of composition being a “classroom activity” still persists.

While reading, I kept thinking that the distinction between theorists and practitioners was an outdated point of view. Every teacher in our department at Kean, I think, is at least moderately active in the field, which means they are all doers, right? However, the more I thought about it, the more I began to think there is a bit of a divide within English departments: literary people and composition people. Is this the modern reincarnation of the theorist/practitioner divide?

“departments become nations” an interesting, and very true, lens.

“reifies social detachment and introversion” a good point. We discussed this a bit in our other class: specifically the idea of crowd sourcing, and how universities tend to frown upon collaboration.

“The rest between composition and literature” it seems I was thinking in the right direction earlier. And that last sentence about Shakespeare/ the minds of 18 year olds was really powerful, I think. And it kind of gets me worked up: the idea that a lit professor, who recycles a worn-out analysis of the same book every semester, is more prestigious than a comp teacher, who constantly has to change and adapt their methodology to cater to their students, is really insulting. Also, I am seeing that I too subscribe to that subconscious rift between comp and lit. As a comp person, I noticed that I have taken a slight offense to being referred to as a mere “working class” member in my own field. Not to say there is anything wrong with a “working class” in the grander scale of society; however, here I am offended because a comp person will do just as much work as a lit person (maybe even more) but according to the chapter, will receive less credit.

Composing Composition Studies Scholarly Publication and the Practice of Discipline” (ch 2)

“in order to demonstrate their apparently equal importance and self-evident interrelationships” enjoyable little bit of sarcasm here.

“faculty can rather efficiently be sorted into categories of “productive” and “unproductive,” with comparatively little or no attention given to teaching” why do I feel this is still true?

“productive work” it is weird to think that some work is unproductive. It’s even weirder to think that in this context “productive” probably means “well-liked” among more prestigious colleagues.

“Given the related assumption that the very purpose of teaching is to disseminate the “findings” of a field’s research to students…professional-client relationship between researcher and teacher” I guess this makes sense. Although the role of researcher and teacher is, I think, more blurred than ever before. It is expected for one person to fulfill these two roles now. But for some reason a teacher cannot disseminate their own findings to their students (who better to do it too?), but rather, teachers are still forced to discuss the findings of others. Which somehow maintains that professional/client relationship, and probably even maintains the “working class” as well. It’s actually really interesting how complex this issue has become even though it hasn’t changed that much.

“English departments were formed, primarily based on a desire to study fiction and poetry in the vernacular” that’s an interesting little fact. And also explains why “English” is stereotypically seen as a literary field despite the emergence of the composition field.

I like that research was a considered a “privilege” when now we see it as a burden.  I wonder how the pioneers of this field, who fought so hard to make the “right” to research so accessible to everyone would feel, knowing people actually dread research projects? (Maybe they too would be annoyed by all the hoops we are required to jump through in order to research.)

political exercise by the institutionally motivated” isn’t everything?

“publishing academics depend on the degraded status of composition “practitioners” to justify their claims to superiority” this is so ironic and dramatic. Now I see why English used to belong to the Theatre department. (It also seems to mirror the way politics work even today.)


“producing text authorized by the university’s class-making system” I’m not sure I agree with this. I think that professors now have more right to conduct their own research and write their own findings than ever before. There are some teachers who even write their own textbooks. Perhaps the restriction mentioned here is the inability to teach their own findings (as I mentioned before)?

blog 3


Thoughts on "The Process Approach to Writing Instruction":


On Emig's study of 12th graders' composition habits, I found the "reflexive"/"extensive" result interesting. I would not have guessed that the distinction in process would lie between logic and emotions (logos and pathos, if you will). What's more is I can't imagine a paper in which a student would be writing to convey/explore an emotion as opposed to a message. I guess this comes from my own (extensive) writing habits where I believe what I bring to the paper is not as important as how I present what I am saying (very message-centric). 

Although I don't agree that writing is as black and white as Elbow's view, I do agree that there is a good amount of problem solving involved in the writing process. Honestly, it is a really good (neater) way to look at revision. And I think this view can make revision more manageable for some. 

Luckily the definition of "professional writers" has extended greatly. Although in my own mind, I still  privately assess a writer's success by how many books they have or have not written; I still see "literary author" as the ultimate professional writer.

It is not surprising that the studies conducted show that focusing on the process improves the product. We talked about this many times last semester.

I am surprised to see that creativity did not increase. I know a technically good paper doesn’t always have to be colorful, but I would think that learning new ways to write and (if we use Elbow’s POV) problem solve, I would think creativity would increase simultaneously. Or at the very least subconsciously?

Good distinction between “editing” and “revising”

The research regarding the NWP wasn’t very surprising to me at all. Although the idea that the absence of one learning component can improve writing better than its presence is interesting to me. Here I am (for some reason) thinking specifically about the absence of vocabulary lessons. Naturally, it makes sense that the less things students need to learn about, the easier it will be to focus on other what they doneed to learn. However, it strikes me as interesting to think that vocabulary lessons could be one of the things intruding on the developing writing process.


Overall impression of this article/chapter: it was alright; it was interesting enough, however, I do not feel that I learned very much. This, to me, seemed to discuss many things we have already covered together in other classes/discussions. Furthermore, the information seemed kind of obvious/ not excessively groundbreaking. However, it was a nice read and it was reassuring to know that there are tests being done to support what we as teachers (and aspiring teachers) already believe: namely, that the process matters.

blog 3


Thoughts on "The Process Approach to Writing Instruction":


On Emig's study of 12th graders' composition habits, I found the "reflexive"/"extensive" result interesting. I would not have guessed that the distinction in process would lie between logic and emotions (logos and pathos, if you will). What's more is I can't imagine a paper in which a student would be writing to convey/explore an emotion as opposed to a message. I guess this comes from my own (extensive) writing habits where I believe what I bring to the paper is not as important as how I present what I am saying (very message-centric). 

Although I don't agree that writing is as black and white as Elbow's view, I do agree that there is a good amount of problem solving involved in the writing process. Honestly, it is a really good (neater) way to look at revision. And I think this view can make revision more manageable for some. 

Luckily the definition of "professional writers" has extended greatly. Although in my own mind, I still  privately assess a writer's success by how many books they have or have not written; I still see "literary author" as the ultimate professional writer.

It is not surprising that the studies conducted show that focusing on the process improves the product. We talked about this many times last semester.

I am surprised to see that creativity did not increase. I know a technically good paper doesn’t always have to be colorful, but I would think that learning new ways to write and (if we use Elbow’s POV) problem solve, I would think creativity would increase simultaneously. Or at the very least subconsciously?

Good distinction between “editing” and “revising”

The research regarding the NWP wasn’t very surprising to me at all. Although the idea that the absence of one learning component can improve writing better than its presence is interesting to me. Here I am (for some reason) thinking specifically about the absence of vocabulary lessons. Naturally, it makes sense that the less things students need to learn about, the easier it will be to focus on other what they doneed to learn. However, it strikes me as interesting to think that vocabulary lessons could be one of the things intruding on the developing writing process.


Overall impression of this article/chapter: it was alright; it was interesting enough, however, I do not feel that I learned very much. This, to me, seemed to discuss many things we have already covered together in other classes/discussions. Furthermore, the information seemed kind of obvious/ not excessively groundbreaking. However, it was a nice read and it was reassuring to know that there are tests being done to support what we as teachers (and aspiring teachers) already believe: namely, that the process matters.