SQR#4
Summary:
Peter Elbow initiates his article by stating that while others like Bartholomea may say his theory is wrong, he believes that there is a conflict between the role of a writer and that of an academic. Elbow admits he is proud of his identities as a writer, and as an academic. He states that at times his identity as a writer, and as an academic conflict sometimes and he talks about their relationship to one another. Elbow teaches a first year writing class, where he wants the students to feel comfortable with both of these while writing. Elbow says that he loves writing because he loves to communicate and explore things through writing with others. He tells the students to all set goals for themselves in this class, he hopes that these goals either stated or accomplished include being comfortable with both roles. Elbow states that he will fight for the role of the writer in his class. A conflict that he deals with is “what we should read” in this writing class. He believes giving his students key texts would be important in the way they can see themselves as an academic. To see themselves as writers Elbow believes they should publish and read their own writing. In the class he publishes a magazine in which four times a semester one piece of writing created by a student is included. Elbow believes that they should read important texts, not to be sacred or referred to as correct but something to talk about, agree, disagree or to write about. He emphasis on treating texts as academics do, using texts and not serving them. Another conflict he arrives at is “how much to read”. Peter Elbow likes his class to write in class, because he feels that it helps him “coach students” with techniques and strategies. He emphasis on writing over reading, he said that he is doing this because every other course focuses on reading over writing. Elbow states that most courses honor reading but don’t treat writing as a central theme. He discusses some interests from both perspectives. From the readers, it is to their interest to say that the writers intentions do not matter. While it in the writers interest to have the readers interested in what is on their mind, to “stay alive” in the readers mind. Writers get frustrated when the reader misreads their writing. The reader or grader, always gets to decide what the material means. For that very reason students withdraw ownership, commitment in their writing. Elbow says that in Academia rules are turned around when it comes to lectures, the writer or the person lecturing is the one that gets to decide what the material means. One of the main points he tries to get across, is that teachers are not too open minded when it comes to answers, they already have certain ideas, or terms that they want addressed in order to tell a student he or she is correct. He uses the example where when we finish writing a paper we turn it in and ask, “is this ok” when he believes that we need to take pride in our work and authority and say, “listen to me, I have something to tell you.” His final arguments mention that when this method is applied, Elbow believes that we are becoming more like test takers, or reader than writers.
Question:
My question is, what do Peter Elbows students think about his theory? Do they agree with everything that is being taught to them? I would also like to know how they see themselves as writers after being in his class.
Answer:
I cannot really answer the part about whether or not they agree, because some may agree with Elbow, and some may disagree. I do believe that they came out of this class with a little more confidence in their writing as opposed to when they first enrolled in the class. I was not in his writing class, but I have to say that I agree with a good amount of his ideas, and they help me see a different perspective while writing.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
SQR #3
Summary:
Where to Begin
Bartholomea starts of this article with the section titled “where to begin”. Bartholomae begins his article with the subtitle where to begin in order to show the readers what he wants to introduce, bartholomea uses a basic standard introducion to explain his purpose for writing the article Writing with teachers. Bartholomea uses “academic writing” as a key focal point to his reason for writing this article. Bartholomea states here, “ academic writing is a single thing only in convenient arguments”. Bartholomea explains that there are different areas which different types of academic writing is displayed. Magazine writing, business writing, political writing, and sports writing are examples of places Bartholomea states different types of academic writing are integrated.
My position I think
In “My position I think” Bartholomea starts off by stating his point . He says that “academic writing” is a very vital term in writing, and writing practices. Bartholomea says that a person can’t just write how they want, they must be taught how to make it “writing”.
Barthalomea defends his view on academic writing. He does this by using examples to defend his perspective to try to get the reader to understand his point of view over why academic reading is so important. Bartholomea tried to explain why he believes what he believes to the people at the convention who have criticised him.
The Contact Zone
In the section “The Contact Zone”Bartholomea talks about power, transmission and authority. As an investigation he says there is no better way to go about this investigation, but to ask “students to do as academics do”.
Teachers As Writters
Bartholomea admits that academic discourse does exist. He says that acacademic discourse writing is not real writing but a “blurred genre not free writing”. Bartholomea desputes that assuming that one genre is more real than others. Bartholomea uses an example to explain what he categorizes to be “blurred genre”. Bartholomea writes an example using real life senerio. Bartholomeo provides an image for the readers that states that people write in in their own words and say everything they want to say which Bartholomea considers the structure to be called “blurred genre”. Then a well-recognized writer re wrote it. Lets say this author made it all fancy and stuff and makes it a narrative genre. It is difficult or maybe even impossible to state which genre is more real than the other.
A Brief History
Bartholomea says that the topic of writing freely, or writing like we would like, is what brings up some conflict. Not necessarily fighting, but arguments debating as to which writing , academic writing, or academic discourse writing is the real way of writing.
Conclusion, or, So how do I get out of this
Bartholomea concludes the article by asking some questions in the debate on academic writing. He asks if al students should be required to say what they want to say in order to make sense of reality. Bartholomea does not have an answer to that. He states that we students cannot simply learn to write appropriately on our own, but need teacher guidance. He believes that teachers should teach students how to write “…as though they could be free, smart, elegant, independent, the owners of all that they say.”
Question:
What if students were told to always write academically? Would we all be stating ideas in the same fashion? Doesn’t that in a way defeat the purpose of writing?
Answer:
In my eyes if we were all told to always write academically we would be little writing robots. It just wouldn’t be right. It would take our voice away from our writing and it would not make it ours. I believe that if we all speak or write differently it is proper because thats what makes every single persons writing different, or unique. As far as whether it defeats the purpose of writing, I do believe so because as I stated earlier writing is suppose to be “unique”.
Where to Begin
Bartholomea starts of this article with the section titled “where to begin”. Bartholomae begins his article with the subtitle where to begin in order to show the readers what he wants to introduce, bartholomea uses a basic standard introducion to explain his purpose for writing the article Writing with teachers. Bartholomea uses “academic writing” as a key focal point to his reason for writing this article. Bartholomea states here, “ academic writing is a single thing only in convenient arguments”. Bartholomea explains that there are different areas which different types of academic writing is displayed. Magazine writing, business writing, political writing, and sports writing are examples of places Bartholomea states different types of academic writing are integrated.
My position I think
In “My position I think” Bartholomea starts off by stating his point . He says that “academic writing” is a very vital term in writing, and writing practices. Bartholomea says that a person can’t just write how they want, they must be taught how to make it “writing”.
Barthalomea defends his view on academic writing. He does this by using examples to defend his perspective to try to get the reader to understand his point of view over why academic reading is so important. Bartholomea tried to explain why he believes what he believes to the people at the convention who have criticised him.
The Contact Zone
In the section “The Contact Zone”Bartholomea talks about power, transmission and authority. As an investigation he says there is no better way to go about this investigation, but to ask “students to do as academics do”.
Teachers As Writters
Bartholomea admits that academic discourse does exist. He says that acacademic discourse writing is not real writing but a “blurred genre not free writing”. Bartholomea desputes that assuming that one genre is more real than others. Bartholomea uses an example to explain what he categorizes to be “blurred genre”. Bartholomea writes an example using real life senerio. Bartholomeo provides an image for the readers that states that people write in in their own words and say everything they want to say which Bartholomea considers the structure to be called “blurred genre”. Then a well-recognized writer re wrote it. Lets say this author made it all fancy and stuff and makes it a narrative genre. It is difficult or maybe even impossible to state which genre is more real than the other.
A Brief History
Bartholomea says that the topic of writing freely, or writing like we would like, is what brings up some conflict. Not necessarily fighting, but arguments debating as to which writing , academic writing, or academic discourse writing is the real way of writing.
Conclusion, or, So how do I get out of this
Bartholomea concludes the article by asking some questions in the debate on academic writing. He asks if al students should be required to say what they want to say in order to make sense of reality. Bartholomea does not have an answer to that. He states that we students cannot simply learn to write appropriately on our own, but need teacher guidance. He believes that teachers should teach students how to write “…as though they could be free, smart, elegant, independent, the owners of all that they say.”
Question:
What if students were told to always write academically? Would we all be stating ideas in the same fashion? Doesn’t that in a way defeat the purpose of writing?
Answer:
In my eyes if we were all told to always write academically we would be little writing robots. It just wouldn’t be right. It would take our voice away from our writing and it would not make it ours. I believe that if we all speak or write differently it is proper because thats what makes every single persons writing different, or unique. As far as whether it defeats the purpose of writing, I do believe so because as I stated earlier writing is suppose to be “unique”.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Research Question/ Proposal
My Question is:
Can an audience have a big influence in what we write? Can that influence be for the better or for the worst?
I plan to Prove that the answer is:
Yes, but we need to limit the affect it has on us, and write we want to say the way we want to say it.
I will do this by doing some research on articles, the internet. I will also survey students from my English class.
Can an audience have a big influence in what we write? Can that influence be for the better or for the worst?
I plan to Prove that the answer is:
Yes, but we need to limit the affect it has on us, and write we want to say the way we want to say it.
I will do this by doing some research on articles, the internet. I will also survey students from my English class.
Monday, February 7, 2011
SQR#2
Summary:
Geoffrey Sirc simply contradicts David Barthalomea. Barthalomea states that we should speak as if we are all knowing, and speak as what he calls “the language of the university”. On the other hand, Sirc states pretty much the excact opposite. “I want to counterpoint this to a cultural undercurrent that has also been present atleast since 1954, which I’m calling virtual urbanism: a different textuality, one in which actual humas, with needs, fears, desires, memories drift through the important spaces of their lives, encountering other humas similary engaged in the ongoing mystery of existence.” (Geoffrey Sirc) As you can see, he counterpoints, or opposes what Barthalomea says. This is important because it makes you think, who is correct? Two different pont of views, that is to say not one way or the other is incorrect, those are just two differnet ways of writing. Sirc believes that when we write the way we speak, the reader will be able to relate better and get more emotion out of it than if we were to write in the “language of the university”.
Question:
After reading this article, there are a couple of questions I came up with. Are these two writing styles the only two writing styles that exist? Is there a certain time in which a style is needed? Or can these two styles be combined to create a hybrid style?
Answer:
I believe that these are not the only two writing styles that exist when speaking to an audience. There may be five, ten one hundred, or even infinite writing styles that exist and there is no wrong or right style. The time and place where you might be may affect the style you use. You may feel more comfortable following what Barthalomea says in a class presentation, while when speaking with your friends you may apply more of what Sirc states and just talk how you talk, or vise versa.
Geoffrey Sirc simply contradicts David Barthalomea. Barthalomea states that we should speak as if we are all knowing, and speak as what he calls “the language of the university”. On the other hand, Sirc states pretty much the excact opposite. “I want to counterpoint this to a cultural undercurrent that has also been present atleast since 1954, which I’m calling virtual urbanism: a different textuality, one in which actual humas, with needs, fears, desires, memories drift through the important spaces of their lives, encountering other humas similary engaged in the ongoing mystery of existence.” (Geoffrey Sirc) As you can see, he counterpoints, or opposes what Barthalomea says. This is important because it makes you think, who is correct? Two different pont of views, that is to say not one way or the other is incorrect, those are just two differnet ways of writing. Sirc believes that when we write the way we speak, the reader will be able to relate better and get more emotion out of it than if we were to write in the “language of the university”.
Question:
After reading this article, there are a couple of questions I came up with. Are these two writing styles the only two writing styles that exist? Is there a certain time in which a style is needed? Or can these two styles be combined to create a hybrid style?
Answer:
I believe that these are not the only two writing styles that exist when speaking to an audience. There may be five, ten one hundred, or even infinite writing styles that exist and there is no wrong or right style. The time and place where you might be may affect the style you use. You may feel more comfortable following what Barthalomea says in a class presentation, while when speaking with your friends you may apply more of what Sirc states and just talk how you talk, or vise versa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)