RESPONSE

Lacy-I can never post a comment, so I have to do a post:

I think you will be fabulous in Rhetoric and Composition; best of luck to you Lacy!!!

Comp and Rhetoric

      To be honest, I think this is such an interesting topic and I wish we had more time in the semester to discuss it! To cut to the chase, I'd like to discuss a section of the reading that I really liked. On page 175, the authors say "we believe that the work of rhetoric and composition can best proceed not only through questions of definition and relations between definitions, but also, and more important, through questions of the histories and conditions of that work, including efforts to shape rhetoric and composition and the institutional reception of those efforts." All too often, it seems that people believe that rhetoric is dependent on composition and vice-versa; however, I see the two areas as independent focuses that go hand in hand with one another. For example, one could study the rhetoric of a speech --to me, the spoken word is not composition as we have restricted the definition to writing.  Also, one could study composition through teaching methods, concerning themselves little with the history, definition, or social context of the word or text. When the two focuses meet, however, they complement each other wonderfully. 

       On a closing note, I have absolutely loved this class! I actually plan on pursing a master's in Rhetoric and Composition, so this class was the perfect introduction. One thing that I will definitely take away from this class is that we should never stop questioning what we read. There are always questions and additional purposes once you break the surface of the text. And, no matter what, there will always be another there to challenge you and expand your way of thinking. 

        Good luck to everyone on their finals and have a wonderful Winter Break! I will probably see most of you in one class or another next semester.  :) 

A Response to William Covino

Trying to decipher Covino's writing was such a chore; my focus remained more on his interesting, but more appropriately confusing, sentence structure, that I had a difficult time trying to actually find meaning in this article. There was a part that I eventually riddled out, though. On pages 37-38, Covino discussed the transition of rhetorical pedagogy from it's historical rich teachings of the 1970's and 1980's, to it's newly found emphasis on global application of the 1990's. This leaves room for controversy: what should we focus on in 21st century pedagogy? Covino cites several arguments that petition for a stronger emphasis on the classics: a petition which I'm personally inclined to agree with. Though educators should cover global applications of rhetoric in their classroom, it does not hold the same meaning if the classics, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero, are not covered first; for what is the value of rhetoric if you do not have a firm grip its basic components? Some may complain that these authors are so often quoted and referenced that there is no genuine need to actually read their works; however, if one is to pass over them entirely, they may possibly have a more difficult time analyzing the more modern works thoroughly.  

comment on Lacy's James Berlin post

I do agree with you about the collaboration process with peers in a classroom setting. I am in Armstrong's Eng. 3360, Magazines and Trade Journals class. Group discussion is the main source for our writing, and to an extent, it does help a lot in understanding the reader and what needs to be fixed in the document. But, the way Berlin put it, it reminded me of the way peer reviewing could have its downside. Groupthink was an excellent example, but I first thought that it stresses other people’s opinions above your own, and who’s to say they won’t bring in their own biases and their socially constructed ways of viewing the world?

Response to "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories"

This reading was refreshing and, in my opinion, exactly what we needed after midterms. It successfully transitioned our train of thought from strictly rhetorical theory to pedagogical theory. There were so many responses I had for this reading, I'm now not sure where to begin. Oh well, I guess I'll just structure my response by the order in which the thoughts come to me!

- First, I'd like to quickly discuss a quote from page 236. "Pedagogical theories in writing courses are grounded in rhetorical theories..." In brief, I believe this statement to be 100% true. In order to teach writing, you must first understand it's philosophical origins, for only then, can you as the teacher, as well as the students, build from the complex, yet strong foundations of rhetoric to produce quality writing. 

- Second I want to discuss a quote from page 236. "To teach writing is to argue for a vision of reality, and the best way of knowing and communicating it." Being English majors, it's quite clear we've taken a considerable amount of composition classes. What do all of these classes, from English 1010 on, have in common? They all share the common goal of communicating effectively through the written word. The goal of writing is to expose your readers to a way of thought that may have not considered otherwise. I believe it was Cicero who argued that in order to speak (or in this case, write) effectively, the author must be knowledgeable on the subject they are speaking on. Once we have the power of knowledge on a topic, we then must know how to communicate it effectively with our audience. What good is all the knowledge you have if you can't share it with others effectively? When a teacher teaches how to write, they are showing the student's how to use the knowledge they already have to acquire a deeper understanding and, eventually, how to produce a document that will communicate their understanding and vision clearly. 

- Third, I would like to negate the Expressionist pedagogical approach of Cole  as discussed on page 242. Cole encourages class room discussion while writing papers. While collaborative revising is a good strategy for identifying errors, I believe that it strips the argument of personally developed truth. In contrast to my argument, Expressionist thinkers believe that truth can only be arrived after the writer has conversed with their peers, for group input can eliminate "what is untrue to the private vision of the writer." If group input is stressed too much, then the writer is then risking the content of their work by submitting to groupthink (an event in which most, if not all, members of a group arrive and pursue the same way of thinking). 

- Fourth, I wanted to end my response with my favorite quote from the reading. The New Rhetoric is an innovative way to approach writing. This rhetorical theory celebrates the writer's thought's and involvement in their work. Under this theory, the writer is the creator of truth rather than just a mere tool for communicating an available truth. I'd like to conclude with my favorite quote from the reading. 

"When you write, you don't follow somebody else's scheme; you design your own. As a writer, you learn to make words behave the way you want them to... Learning how to write is not a matter of learning the rules that govern the use of the semicolon of the names of the sentence structures, nor is it a matter of manipulating words; it is a matter of making meanings, and that is the work of an active mind." From 7th grade on, it seems that teachers stress the importance of the structure and regulation of writing, that they completely forget to emphasize the reason for writing: to create meaning. 

 

Kenneth Burke- From a "Grammar of Motives"

For the most part, I found this reading to be rather straight forward. One question that arose during my reading was "what are the limits of agency?" The reading defines agency as the means or instruments used to assist the agent in his/her action (p. 1298). The examples of agency provided were mostly physical objects, such as on the bottom of page 1301 where a "file" is used to assist the agent escape. Burke further elaborates on agency in the bottom of the second column on page 1301 in claiming that the hand itself, which holds the file, is an agent as well. Going back to my original question: what are the limits of agency? From the writing, it appears that agency is limited to physical objects; however, I believe that agency can extend to sensations or other non-tangible assistants.  For example, instead of the hero in the reading using a file or his own hand to assist him, he could have used strength or knowledge to help him escape.

The Book of the Cities of Ladies

 It is interesting to see the the treatment of women in past years. What I found most interesting about this read was the desire of men to keep women uneducated. Though they would morally benefit from it, it seemed that men were nervous of what could come of such schooling. It is also argued that women have done much good in society. Therefore, I wonder why anyone would want to hinder such positive progression.