Unpacking Literacy

This paper focuses on the Vai people of Liberia, who have an independent phonetic writing system and teach it to the men of their society without formal education. There is Vai script, arabic script and english script. All three are used but by different degrees. The Vai script is for more personalized writing, and it is the most widely known, arabic script is used for religion and is the second most widely known. English script is used for political, official work and is the least known.

The authors describe how Arabic is learned by the Vai people, it starts of with the authors call "rote memorization" where students recite words they don't understand and can't decode but after that phase is complete the students learn how to speak arabic and how to actually write the language. "Thus Arabic literacy can relate to individuals to text on both the 'lowest' (repetition without comprehension0 and 'highest' (analysis of textual meaning) levels."

The way Vai script is learned is a bit different and the authors call it "literacy without education". Usually, a friend, relative or fellow citizens agrees to teach the characters to the person who is acting as the student. The student commits it to memory and practices writing names and letters.

The main question raised by this article is: What is real literacy?
the Vai people don't learn Via script and Arabic script the conventional way yet they can write and read the language.

In the beginning of the article there is a model on what writing is, the authors conclude that the model "fails to give full justice to the multiplicity of values, uses, and consequences which characterize writing as a social practice."

Inventing the University

Inventing the University by David Bartholomae is an interesting article. It addresses the process students go through to do college-level writing. They have to appropriate the language of the professors in order to be considered a good writer. Writing academically does not mean that one is writing well, but it is frowned upon to write colloquially. Bartholomae mentions how some students have caught on to vocabulary needed to sound academic but don't really have anything to say.

The subject of audience is addressed. "I think that all writers, in order to write, must imagine themselves the privilege of being 'insiders'-- that is, of being both inside an established and powerful discourse, and of being granted a special right to speak." The authors opinions on audience and power of the writer is a bit confusing. He draws analysis from a couple of samples of college freshman all given the same prompt. Describe a time when you felt you did something creative and then draw some general conclusions about creativity.

The example of the Jazz writer and the Clay Model writer is interesting when the two are compared. the clay model writer was clearly faking a level of sophistication in writing that he had not yet reached, there were issues on the sentence level and some of his ideas failed to come through but he was using academic language. The Jazz writer made sense, it was clear he had a grasp on the language he was using but he talked around he subject instead of answering it.

The main point of Bartholomae's article in my opinion, is-- there are stages of development students go through when they enter college. There is a lot that is asked of them and they learn to do what they need to do to succeed. 

Audience Adressed/Audience Invoked

Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford analyze the subject of the audience in writing and the authors relationship with the audience. The two authors refer to Ruth Mitchell and Mary Taylor's piece "The Integrating Perspective: An Audience-Response Model for Writing" and base their analysis on where they agree or disagree with the two authors.

The first problem Ede and Lunsford address about Mitchell and Taylor's piece is what is left out. Ede and Lunsford point out that the two authors don't talk about invention, they don't address how the authors come up with ideas and form a written work. Another critique Ede and Lunsford offer has to due with the focus on the audience and not the writer.

Ede and Lunsford quote the Susan Wall, "when writers read their own writing, as they do continuously while they compose", 'there are really not one but two contexts for rereading: there is the writer-as-reader's sense of what the established text is saying, as of this reading; and there is the readers-as-writer's judgement of what the text might say or should say…"

The authors analysis of the quote is explained when they state "what is missing from Mitchell and Taylor's model, and from much work done from the perspective of audience as addressed, is a recognition of the crucial importance of this internal dialogue, through which writers analyze inventional problems and conceptualize patterns of discourse." I think this quote is the thesis of Ede and Lunsford piece.

The tension of different teachers having different perspective of what good writing is, is something we've explored together as a class and it comes up again in this article.  I've never come across the debate of the audience addressed and audience invoked before this audience. I have had teachers tell me to just write and not worry about the audience and I guess that's what audience invoked is all about. 

The Queer Turn in Composition Studies

Jonathan Alexander and David Wallace talk about homosexuality in the field of composition. They bring up several terms heteronormativity, which basically means that being heterosexual is normalized in society and the homosexual community suffers because they are outside what society considers normal. They point out that the queer voice is not heard in many instances. I guess when you talked about the obstacles we advantages we had growing up concerning our literacy when we wrote our literacy narratives, I don't think any of us thought to consider our sexual orientation. Alexander and Wallace give an example of the lack of attention to queer studies at the college level.

The authors then address concerns facing multicultural teaching such as the lack of openly queer teachers and having to deal with obviously homophobic students. Alexander and Wallace refer to Mary Louise Pratt's metaphor of contact zones when it comes to these touchy areas. No amount of professional training prepares a queer instructor how to deal with a student who turns in homophobic work. I never thought about the predicament queer teachers went through. If they come out as openly homosexual then they risk their views not being taken seriously on certain topics. Students might think that's the queer version every time the instructor opens their mouth. And if queer teachers don't come out how can they normalize their sexuality?

Alexander and Wallace seem to be arguing just for a space to be able to discuss sex, sexuality and things of that nature. These things are bound to make people uncomfortable but how else can the issue be normalized when it's treated as some taboo subject?

The authors want to the problem of heteronormativity addressed but also the role of the students and teachers who participate in the oppression of queers with the power of their discourse. 

Writing Proposal.

The readings I'm most interested in are Technology and Literacy: The Perils of Not Paying Attention, Writing is a technology that reconstructs thought and From Pencils to Pixels. They each made me look at different aspects of writing and changed my view in some way. Technology and Literacy made me realize why it so essential to pay attention to technology, I was one of those people who felt that books were good enough to use in the classroom and computers aren't essential in a writing class, unless you're typing published work. 

Writing is a Technology that Reconstructs Thought really gave me an inside look on what being able to write has done to our brains, and how powerful written language is. The piece just gave me a whole new way to think about writing which I really appreciate. 

From Pencils to Pixels was the first piece that allowed me to see writing as a technology, I didn't quite believe that writing was a technology no matter how many times professor Silva said it in class until I read that piece.

For the presentation I guess I would like to explain further the ideas one of these pieces explore. Maybe some video, or some illustration; a class discussion on what it means to the rest of the class.

Final Draft of Literacy Narrative

  "Lashanda!" It was my mom calling in a tone that didn't too pleased.

      "Yes mommy?" I called out while walking to her bedroom.

      "What did I tell you about writing on the walls?" I was five and in kindergarten. I looked at her stupidly.

      " No more writing on the wall." It wasn't so much a statement as it was a warning. She gave me a look that said I could go. I walked away surprised. She didn't sound too angry, which was weird for my mom. There were things she didn't tolerate, I was pretty sure writing on the walls would be on that list. I walked back to the living room and pondered my mom’s apathy towards our ruined walls. It occurred to me that she knew. I couldn't stop if I wanted to. I just learned to spell my name and I had to write it everywhere.  I entered kindergarten afraid, my parents left me at the gate with a stranger holding my hand. I held back tears as I waved back at them. The building looked like Cinderella's carriage after the bibbidi bobbidi boo. It was another world, nothing like the schoolhouses I had seen in Ghana. Birthed in the Bronx I was whisked away to Ghana at the young age of two, and now I had returned to begin kindergarten. I solidified my knowledge of the ABC's in kindergarten. I learned to spell my name; I learned how to interact in a classroom. Those were the big take aways. I remember struggling with books in first grade, but by second grade I realized how much I loved story time. We would sit cross-legged on the rug and the teacher would read to us. I would be so engrossed, listening with my whole being, mentally in the world of the characters that when story time ended I felt as if I had woken up from a dream. My mom gave me a beautiful little journal around that time where I would scribble little things. My teacher would go through the pages and tell me how good each line was. Her attention felt amazing. She was blonde and tall, but then all grownups were tall to me. She always spoke in a soft tone. I did whatever I could to get her praise. I'm pretty sure I would have jump out of the classroom window if she asked me to. I have never given much thought to my literacy journey and if it wasn't for my writing theory class I probably never would have. Some things we have been discussing heavily is the idea of sponsors. 

     Deborah Brandt, a scholar wrote a piece titled Sponsors of Literacy. Her work addresses how people become literate. She claims that a person’s literacy has to do with their economic situation and any entity that restricts or facilitates their literacy such as the government, teachers, or parents; she calls these sponsors.  Ms. Milano, my fourth grade teacher was one of my sponsors. It was the last day of fourth grade, the only reason why we came was to get our report cards and see what class we were placed in for next year.  Some friends would be torn apart others coupled together. I skimmed my final grades quickly and turned to the back of the card. I gasped when I saw what class I was placed in. I ran to Ms. Milano.

“You put me in 01?” The other kids in the classroom heard my loud outburst and gathered around us. “She’s going to 01?” Someone yelled, the rest murmured among themselves.

“Yeah,” Mrs. Milano said calmly. “I think you can do it.” There was a number system in my school of all the grades. the first number was the grade level the other two numbers was the skill level of the students in that class. The 01's were the kids on the advanced track; most of them had been together since first grade. Mrs. Milano believed in me. I let her down brutally (I want to find her one day and apologize). I was only half there in class and I barely did any homework. I felt no motivation to do any work outside of class. I really liked my fourth grade teacher. I wanted to impress her, which is why I tried in her class. The atmosphere of 501 was completely different. None of the kids wanted anything to do with me, I was all alone in that classroom. I spent that year waiting for school to be over. That year, a girl died in our class. Her name was Nathera. She had contracted a very rare disease that caused her skin to swell up and bloat. It was on News 12 the Bronx, reporters wanted to interview us. By the end of the year she was mostly forgotten. Her mom wrote and distributed a poem at the little memorial we held for her. It was beautiful and I would read it every couple of months when it was time to clean the house and I would discover it again. I had it for a long time. It was ripped and browning before I lost it.  In fifth grade I thought poets wrote poetry. Ordinary people, moms— didn't just up and write poems. But Natherea’s mom had and it made me think that I could write a poem if I wanted to. I didn’t though, until it was a required assignment for school. PS/MS/95 also known as public school/ middle school/ 95, if you're not from New York City you're probably not familiar with the school numbering. Every public school has a number. I was in 95 from kindergarten to 8th grade. Nine Years. 
      The school was severely underfunded. We had no music program and art stopped once you hit fourth grade. There were no special books or technology even for the 01’s. The school administration just had the good sense to separate the kids that were more advanced so they could be challenged and taught at a quicker pace. We did have teachers who cared and the administration would repeatedly tell us how lucky we were. They had horror stories about other schools where the teachers sat in the classrooms just as bored as the students. 

When I was very young, I'm not sure when, the time is all warped and distorted, I had a tutor. I was having problems with basic math. I didn't get it, and even though I was really young I thought my tutor was very cute so I did try. Stephen was a teenager who lived in my building, a fellow Ghanaian. My dad knew his dad and asked if Stephen could tutor me for some extra cash. One day he was asking me something about a problem, I shrugged to say I didn't know the same time my dad passed by. Stephen the tutor misunderstood the shrug and told my father that I didn't care.

"No, that's not true!" I exclaimed. At that time I was really bad at articulating myself, I didn't know how to explain I had been misunderstood. My dad yelled at me and I was forever upset at Stephen. I sat there seething that day, hot tears in the corners of my eyes threatened to fall. From then on I didn't allow myself to be taught by Stephen. I would only pretend to listen to him, thinking I was hurting him when I was in fact hurting myself.  
      The large Ghanaian population led to a tight community in my building, something I benefited from. The grownups would pass along valuable information to other grownups. We all went to the same buffets and restaurants. The grownups had the same tax person, and went to see the same lawyer. We went to the same doctor and shopped in the same places. I had another tutor from fifth to sixth grade. She was the cousin of an uncle of mine who went to the same church and lived in the same building as us. She would tutor me with another Ghanaian boy who lived in my building, Keith. It helped but not much. I would only pretend to be having breakthroughs when I was still very lost. I'd almost forgotten about her but this summer, the summer before my junior year of college, I learned that she passed away after a complication with her surgery. At one point in my life I was used to seeing her everyday after school. 
      My parents were always working and when they were around the house they would criticize my siblings and I for watching so much T.V. My father would make us go and study. We would look at each other and roll our eyes. We couldn't wait for him to go back to work so we could go back to watching T.V uninterrupted. My dad is always talking about the importance of school and education; I grew up knowing I was going to college. He would go on and on about how he wanted a better life for me. He didn't want me to work two jobs like him, barely getting any sleep. For the most part we were left on our own and we barely studied. I read for pleasure when I felt like it. I told my sisters to read but didn't push them on it. Reading was a personal escape for me. My sisters knew not to interrupt me when I was reading. Before Brandt, I never thought of my parents as sponsors of my education.  I had forgotten about the tutors and all the school supplies they bought. Looking back I realize my parents really cared about my education. Even though we've always been pressed for cash my dad valued me enough to spend money on a tutor.

       Throughout middle school and high school. I was called a bookworm. I was the "smart one" in the class. But I wasn't really, I was failing math all through school. I read a lot, people assumed I was smart. People would see me reading in the corner during recess or under my desk during class. I had a few close friends and no social life. Since the fifth grade I was home continuously watching my siblings. It wasn't so bad in middle school since there was nothing to do but high school presented all these opportunities. I wanted to join all these clubs, especially the guitar club where I could get lessons for free, free but I had to go home and watch the kids. I had to cook and make sure they did their homework. I wanted to join soccer but it was the same situation., practice ended late and who would pick up the kids from after school? I couldn't partake in all these other experiences because of my responsibilities. My parents saw it as my duty and we couldn't afford a babysitter. Why would my parents pay for a babysitter when I could do the job? Ghanaian culture requires kids pull their weight in the household. Part of the reason they're born is to help their parents. Everyone close to me knows how much I love my kids (that’s what I call my siblings), my little brother was born when I was in the tenth grade and he is the best thing to happen since ever. But sometimes I can’t help feeling that I sacrificed something for them.

In high school I began I to consider considering writing just for the sake of it. I was inspired by how the books I read moved me. I wanted to make the same magic as the authors I cherished. In tenth grade my humanities teacher, Ms. McMurdo, a major sponsor in my literacy history, recommended an organization called Girls Write Now. The program paired professional female writers with high school girls with a passion for writing. It changed my life. I ended up winning the scholastic gold medal for my writing portfolio, which included a journalism piece I had written when I was part of the Bronx Youth Heard program. A teen journalism newspaper I joined after some pressure from my journalism teacher. It also included some pieces about my family—things I had written with Girls Write Now. The award came with a ten thousand dollar scholarship, which allowed me to go to Ithaca College. During the whole GWN experience I questioned myself, if what I was doing was actually considered writing. If my work was any good, if I was just fooling myself. Was I faking it, like I did half of school? But I won the national gold medal and it was a big deal. The people who hosted the event really pulled out the red carpet for us. I felt like a writer then.

  There were a lot of programs available to me. Girls Write Now nominated me for the Posse a program, a program that gives minorities a chance to receive a full ride to college. I wasn't accepted but being nominated was an opportunity. Brandt would point out that being from the Bronx where I had access to all of the city’s resources and my parent’s value in my education played a huge part in my literacy journey. My high school although underfunded had a school paper and I was part of the class who was forced to make it.  Even though I groaned all through that class I secretly enjoyed it. My school having a paper is a resource I benefited from. My family is also something I consider a benefit. 

I'm the first to go to college in my family; my parents didn't get the chance to further their education in Ghana, where there is no public education system. All schools are private and have to be payed for at each level. My parents always remind me I'm setting the example for the rest of my siblings. It's all up to me and sometimes I feel like I'm faking it, like I've always done.

But I’m starting to put things into perspective. I've come to realize the things I don’t care too much about and have to fake are not that important in the long run. It’s the writing that’s important. I've known that since I began writing my name.   

Reflection

Midterm Reflection Comp Theory

750 Words

Cynthia L. Selfe's article "Technology and Literacy: A Story About the Perils of Not Paying Attention" was the reading that hit me the hardest. The piece was about the importance of technology in this day and age and why it is a grave mistake for composition teachers to disregard technology or treat it as an optional tool. Computer literacy is essential in this day and age but writers tend to be humanists and we have the tendency to look down on things not having to do with the human condition. We tend to also believe our paper and pen is the only technology that we need. "Allowing ourselves the luxury of ignoring technology, however, is not only misguided at the end of the 20th century, it is dangerously shortsighted." Selfe seemed very passionate about composition teachers making technology apart of the curriculum. "We need to recognize that if written language and literacy practices are our professional business, so is technology." She also stresses being alert and paying attention to the system they are apart of. Selfe addresses the concept of literacy as a political act, which reminds me of the Brandt article sponsors of literacy. She uses the Clinton-Gore Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st century initiative as an example. Selfe explains why the initiative was thought of in the first place. It all has to do with the political context of the time. Clinton-Gore was preparing to enter the white house and the economy of the U.S. was stagnant. There was a widening in the gap between the rich and the poor, and the United States was threatened by the growing economies in the east. The plan was to make the United States a technological nation. To make that vision possible, children needed to be familiar with computers so when they grew up they could enter jobs that required computer literacy. Yet the computer distribution sadly echoed the systematic oppression of minorities. Students from lower income families barely received the same level of equipment as students from higher income families. When they did receive computers there were no adequate programs in place to teach them how to use the new technology. Selfe ends the article urging teachers to "resist the tendential forces that continue to link technological literacy with patterns of racism and poverty. I really liked how Selfe connected computer literacy to real world problems. This article made me realize how everything connects. What we're learning in class really came to life for me with this reading.
From Pencils to Pixels by Dennis Baron was the text that helped me realize that writing is a technology. That statement kept getting repeated in class but I could never fully understand how writing could be compared to a computer. Baron compared people from this time who are wary of computers to famous people from the past such as Plato who was wary of writing when it was "new". That comparison really did it for me. Seeing Pencils and Paper as technology was very eye opening. One concept I found really interesting was our suspicion of new technology. First it was writing, phones, then calculators now computers. Once the technology becomes normalized it becomes invisible. By invisible I mean it no longer is thought of as life changing. Before this class I thought it was natural to write down what you thought but this class has made me realize writing is relatively new in human history and there are oral communities who think absolutely differently from people who write. Writing has an affect on the brain, which is amazing to me.
When I was first introduced to the terms cognitive rhetoric, social epistemic rhetoric, discursive practices, pedagogy and the concept of writing as a technology I was a bit lost. During our talks as a class and further analyzing the texts we were given to read I realized it was just the wording of the articles that confused me. I now know that cognitive rhetoric is the idea of following a process, a structure. Social epistemic rhetoric is the idea that knowledge is collective and has to do with society. Discursive practices is the analysis of institutions that have established what is the truth in a society. Pedagogy is the method of teaching a theoretical concept. And like I said above, seeing writing as technology just took time.

By the end of this semester I hope the question of why in this day and age literacy isn't more rampant/ accessible is answered. I also want to know why certain forces seem to want to keep it that way. I would also like to know the larger meaning of writing theory, what am I supposed to do with what I learn in this class and how can it help my writing? Lastly I want to know if having a whole field based on writing has changed anything major in our world.     

Faulkner Revision

Faulkner talks about the Four Philosophies of Composition teachers use to grade writing, in his piece the Four Philosophies of Composition. There are Formalists teachers who judge writing based on structure. There are expressionist teachers who have a wide range beliefs, they can be teachers who refuse to grade work or teachers who create specific lesson plans to help their students discover who they are as writers.  Mimetic teachers emphasize logic, reasoning and research-- they believe the more you know the better you write. Teachers who believe in rhetoric agree that writers must write with the audience in mind.
 
"There is nothing wrong with and expressive philosophy, but there is something seriously wrong with classroom methodology which implies one variety of value judgement when another will actually be employed. That is modal confusion, mindlessness."

Faulkner believes teachers can't stick with one of these philosophies and end up switching back and forth mindlessly confusing the students and grading them unfairly. He uses the example of a teacher evaluating a students work with expressionist values, according to the teacher the student jimmy did not sound like himself in the piece he wrote. The teacher was relating to expressionist values but the students were not told to make their writing authentic in the way the teacher apparently wanted it. Faulkner has made me think about writing classes in a new way. Most of my life teachers have been giving me prompts like, write how you feel about x, without any clear guidance and commenting that I need to expand or be clearer when they in fact are the ones who should have been clearer with their instructions. Different teachers value different things but I'm not sure they know that they are being mimetic or formalists. I think that it is unfair and unfortunate that most teachers, I'm assuming, aren't knowledgeable about the four philosophies of composition and ask for one thing when they grade seeking another.

A concept that I found interesting in this article was the teacher being the one at fault. Usually when I would get my work back asking for something to be clarified or expanded I would blame myself but after reading this piece when I think about the prompts for such assignments, they were pretty unspecific. I was recently asked to write about my opinion on two conflicting arguments, and the teacher  graded me on my form. I guess some teachers feel that there is no need to include that piece of instruction, but it couldn't hurt. 

Development of Disciplinary Cognition

Sociocultural Theory Revision

“Rather than viewing knowledge as existing inside the heads of individual participants or in the external world, sociocultural theory views meaning as being negotiated at the intersection of individuals, culture, and activity” (p. 208).

Socioculturists believe that knowledge comes from interacting with ones surroundings. Talking to people, experiencing new things allows one to grow. There are also tools that can help facilitate growth. Their theory is compatible with Vygotsky’s theory, his theory is also based on social interaction. Vygotsky believed that human interaction was responsible for development unlike the other scientist who believed time is what allowed people to develop. He believed people needed to grow to a certain point to be able to understand things.

"...procedural facilitators offer semiotic tools that enable teachers to make visible the character of the particular text forms, the strategies and procedures that underlie the text’s construction and revision, and the discourse structures and language practices that permit writers to realize their writing goals”

Teachers using tools to help students grow as writers also fits into Vygotsky's theory because it is a sort of social interaction. The teacher is handing down a technique common to their society, such as MEAL, Main Idea, Example, Analysis, and Link; an acronym for writing good paragraphs. This is an example of how society determines what is 'good". MEAL is something I learned in High School and it continues to be passed down to other students.

This reading talks about apprenticeships, which is a social thing because the apprentice is learning from a master or someone way more skilled then they are. 

To really break down this reading I am going to answer some basic questions and connect it back to the reading.

-What is an an apprenticeship?
Learning under somebody who is an expert.
-What does cognitive mean?
Following a process, structure, formulas.
-What would be a cognitive apprenticeship?
Learning from someone who uses structure and a process; how to do so effectively.
-What would be a social apprenticeship?
Learning socially from other people
-What would be a sociocognitive apprenticeship?
learning about different techniques through a social context from someone knowledgable.

The social culturalists believe that writing can be enhanced with tools such as venn diagrams, t-charts, basically anything that helps one write--pencil paper. The teacher is also a tool and what makes teaching a social interaction. The other students can also be a source of knowledge because of varying points of view. Connecting back to Vygotsky's theory talking to different people and doing new things is a way to develop.  

A Sociocultural Theory to Writing

Sociocultural theory believes that knowledge is determined by society, interactions with different individuals form what we understand to be knowledge. "... There remains a social quality to all higher psychological processes."

Sociocognitive Apprenticeships in Writing
--Thinking about the discourse of thinking. Having think out-louds to highlight the process of thought.  Sociocultural theory focuses a lot on teachers, adults and experts. Students learn what the academic experts consider good writing.
"Students acquire writing knowledge through interactions with others, and through through these dialogues talk their way into deeper understanding of writing processes."
This theory believes  the social interactions in classrooms  are a necessary part of learning how to write. And not just the community of the classrooms but society in general decides what good writing is. The adults, the experts and teachers teach students how to judge writing, what is good writing.

Procedural Facilitators and Tools
"...Any tool used in the transformation and construction process."
This part of the theory focuses on tools that help better writing. From writing instruments to spell check, graphic organizers and diagrams. " Just as engineers use an array of tools to construct a well-formed building, writers use an array of tools to construct a well-written text."
-- teachers who implemented the sociocultural theory along with procedural facilitators and tools had students who were better able to achieve their aims with their writing. Tools give students a way to think about the construction of their work.

What is an an apprenticeship?
Learning under somebody who is an expert.

What does cognitive mean?
Following a process, structure, formulas.

What would be a cognitive apprenticeship?
Learning from a cognitivists how to apply their theory.

What would be a social apprenticeship?
Learning socially from other people

What would be a sociocognitive apprenticeship?
learning about different processes through a social context from adults. 

Response to Faulkner

"There is nothing wrong with and expressive philosophy, but there is something seriously wrong with classroom methodology which implies one variety of value judgement when another will actually be employed. That is modal confusion, mindlessness."


Faulkner talks about the Four Philosophies of Composition teachers use to grade writing, in his piece the Four Philosophies of Composition. There are Formalists teachers who judge writing based on structure. There are expressionist teachers who have a wide range beliefs, they can be teachers who refuse to grade work or teachers who create specific lesson plans to help their students discover who they are as writers.  Mimetic teachers emphasize logic, reasoning and research-- they believe the more you know the better you write. Teachers who believe in rhetoric agree that writers must write with the audience in mind.  Faulkner believes teachers can't stick with one of these philosophies and end up switching back and forth mindlessly confusing the students and grading them unfairly. He uses the example of a teacher evaluating a students work with expressionist values, according to the teacher the student jimmy did not sound like himself in the piece he wrote. The teacher was relating to expressionist values but the students were not told to make their writing authentic in the way the teacher apparently wanted it. Faulkner has made me think about writing classes in a new way. Most of life teachers have been giving my prompts like, write how you feel about x, without any clear guidance and  commenting that I need to expand or be clearer when they in fact should have been clearer with their message. Different teachers value different things but I'm not sure they know that they are being mimetic or formalists.

Response to Introduction and Berlin

     The Introduction, How Did We Get Here? By Kelly Ritter and Paul Kei Matsuda  is a piece that explores how composition has changed throughout the history of colleges and universities. According to the two authors, universities were set up to educate the elite. Composition was first a class taught mainly to men "for deployment into profession society."  Women were also taught composition in women colleges but there was a slant to it, they learned composition in the context of becoming teachers or "mother-teachers".  Colleges were for the upper-class men of "taste," but after World War II there were a lot of empty seats, so elite colleges such as Harvard didn't have the luxury of admitting only upperclass people.
The authors illustrate how universities are reimaged whenever a huge change in society occurs, such as the civil rights movement or the baby boom.
Writing instruction changes based on the students, an idea that the authors clearly examine during this piece.


Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class by James Berlin explores the different types of rhetoric that teachers use to teach writing. There's cognitive, expressionists, and social-epostimic rhetoric.
   According to Berlin, cognitivists  talk about writing if it's some kind of formula, which is funny because I always considered writing to be the opposite of math. " In other words, the elements of the process can be identified and their functions described, but the order of their operation will vary from task to task and from individual to individual, even though the practices of good writers will be very similar to each other." This idea is something I've been slowly learning. I'm a writing major and my classes focus on good writing, how to effectively convey your meaning exactly the way you want. To do that my peers and I have been learning to incorporate tools that all writers use, so when cognitivists mention functions and the process I have to agree. It's hard to see writing as a tool and not a form of creative expression. In my experience my teachers have incorporated both expressionists and cognitive rhetoric in their teaching. I believe the best kind of writing is a mix between the two, there are certain elements of craft that good writers incorporate no matter how reinvented to achieve their goals of getting their point across. When this is done well enough the writing comes across as flawless and true which has elements of expressionists.

Respnse to "Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought"

 Ong really made me think with this article. In class we've been talking about writing as a technology but it's been hard for me to see writing as something comparable to a computer. I've always thought of writing as somewhat natural. But Ong has finally helped me realize that it is not. In this article he compares literate cultures to oral cultures, which is what I think I needed to grasp the concept. Ong argues that writing is a relatively new technology in the history of mankind. His argument allowed me to see the technological aspects of the alphabet, paper and writing utensils. 

1. "Our literature word of visually processed sounds has been totally unfamiliar to most human beings, who always belonged, and often still belong to this oral world."

 Ong describes how oral and literate minds differ. He gives the example of asking a literate and oral person to think of the word nevertheless. The literate person would picture the word in their mind and the oral person would think about the sound of the word. Ong also brings up the fleeting nature of sound, "By the time i get to the 'the less', the 'never' is gone (p. 25)." A literate person has the advantage of visualizing the word pinned down on paper.

2. "They believed only the languages they knew as written, such as English or French, could be written."
 Ong tells the story of a linguist who alphabetized a south pacific language, the people who spoke it didn't believe their language could be written down. This is another example of how writing is a technology, it is by no means natural.

3."Even when he talks, Plato's Socrates is using thought forms brought into being by writing."
 Writing allows for deep analytical reflection something that Ong says is missing from oral cultures. When there is a written word it is possible to make connections and explore thoughts. Oral traditions do not focus on those concepts because the energy is spent remembering stories and passing them on.

4. Although, we take writing for granted so much so as to forget that is a technology, writing is in a way the most distinct of the three technologies of the word. It initiated what printing and electronics only continued…"
The technology that exists today is an extension of writing. Ong explains that clearly when he claims, "It initiated what printing and electronics only continued, the physical reduction of dynamic sound to quiescent space, the separation of the word from the living present, where alone real, spoken words exist.

5. Technologies are not mere exterior aids but also interior transformations of consciousness, and never more than when they affect the world.
 It still amazes me human beings are capable of inventing technology that changes how the mind works. It makes me think about the future and it makes me wonder how the human mind will react to new technologies.