Saturday, December 26, 2009

Writing and the Law

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:40:42 -0500
From: Katie Rose Guest Pryal <katierose.pryal@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: New Composition and Law Resource Listserv

This is an announcement for Writing in the Disciplines directors and for
instructors who specialize in Writing in the Disciplines / Law courses
or Writing for the Legal Profession courses. I've started a new listserv
as a resource for this new and thriving composition sub-discipline. I
invite all who are interested to join by following the URL below.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comp-law/join

In our online group space, we can store syllabi and assignment sequences
as a resource. I look forward to seeing new names on the list and
meeting my colleagues in this field from around the country.

Thanks.


--

Katie Rose Guest Pryal, J.D., Ph.D.
=-=-=-=
Lecturer in Rhetoric and Composition
&
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
=-=-=-=
Phone: 919-321-1654
Fax: 919-321-2796
=-=-=-=
Faculty Page: http://english.unc.edu/faculty/guestk.html
Online CV: http://katieroseguest.blogspot.com


"This teaching and learning--this work--ain't easy."
-John O. Calmore

Articles and Readings

Articles for my Basic Writing Class:

Connections between reading and writing:

Bazerman, Charles. "A Relationship Between Reading & Writing: The
Conversational Model." College English 41.6 (Feb. 1980): 656-661.

Salvatori, Mariolina. "Reading and Writing a Text: Correlations Between
Reading and Writing Patterns." College English 45.7 (Nov. 1983: 657-666.

Bartholomae, Anthony and Anthony R. Petrosky. "Facts, Artifacts, and
Counterfacts: A Basic Reading and Writing Course for the College
Curriculum." A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers. Ed. Theresa Enos.
1987. 275-296 306.

=20

How writers "read" texts they response to:

Bruffee, Kenneth A. "Writing and Reading as Collaborative or Social
Acts." A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers. Ed. Theresa Enos. 1987.
565-574.

Troyka, Lynn Quitman. "The Writer as Conscious Reader." A Sourcebook for
Basic Writing Teachers. Ed. Theresa Enos. 1987. 307-317.

Emig, Janet. "Writing as a Mode of Learning." College Composition and
Communication 28. 2 (May 1977): 122-128.

=20

=20

Three critical resources for writers: feeling, authority, and voice

McLeod, Susan. "Some Thoughts about Feelings: The Affective Domain and
the Writing Process." College Composition & Communication 38.4 (Dec.
1987): 426-435.

Penrose, Ann and Cheryl Geisler. "Reading and Writing Without
Authority." College Composition and Communication 45.4 (Dec. 1994):
505-520.

Fulwiler, Toby. "Looking and Listening for My Voice." College
Composition and Communication Vol. 41.2 (May 1990): 214-220.

Sullivan, Patricia. "Composing Culture: A Place for the Personal."
College English 66.1 Special Issue: The Personal in Academic Writing
(Sep. 2003): 41-54.

Faculty Teaching Writing Across the Disciplines

See WPA-L Thread:

Seeking inspiration and wisdom for WAC/WID initiative
Rebecca Ingalls, Fri, Dec 4, 2009 9:38 am

Sunday, December 6, 2009

The question that begins the course...

What have you learned to assume about writing? How have you come to assume this? What the implications of these assumptions?

What have you learned about how writing works? Who or where have you learned this?

Make a list of five things.

Academic WRiting

For an interesting overview of how much academic writing works, check out Joseph Williams' book Style, Lesson 10, "Motivating Coherence," in which Wilson analyzes the template of:

Shared Context -- Problem -- Solution

He addresses two kinds of problems:
  1. Practical
  2. Conceptual (this is the kind we typically work with in academic contexts, he says, and the kind of problem students sometimes struggle with)
He writes:
All of this is hard to grasp if you're new to teh academic world. We all understand practical problems because they make us pay a palpable cost. But those new to academic research don't know what gaps in understanding make good conceptual problems, because they don't yet know what others in their field don't know, but want to. (That's a practical problem that only time and experience solve.) (p. 191)
It occurs to me that this chapter might be an interesting or useful one to ask students in a WAW course to read, so they have some big-picture or meta-knowledge about how the academic articles I am going to ask them to read work.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Responding to Student WRiting (resources)

John Bean's _Engaging Ideas_ discusses important insights on the subject of responding to student writing. Another good source is Richard Straub's _A Sourcebook for Responding to Student Writing_.

Nancy Sommer's "Responding to Student Writing."

Erika Lindemann's _A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers_ has an excellent
chapter on this.

I also recommend Rich Haswell's 2006 article in _Across the
Disciplines_ : "The Complexities of Responding to Student Writing; or,
Looking for Shortcuts via the Road of Excess";

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/haswell2006.cfm

That's the same Rich Haswell who wrote "Minimal Marking," 1983 College
English 45.6, 600-604. This would be another "must read" for your
faculty.

Barbara Walvoord and Virginia Anderson, _Effective
Grading_. One of the best things about the book is the sample scoring
guides from various disciplines.


Pat Belanoff and Peter Elbow put together a great summary of strategies of responding to student writing in a nice little book ("Sharing and Responding") that came shrink wrapped with their textbook "A Community of Writers" (McGraw-Hill,1989). Strategies are sorted into five categories, roughly from non-judgmental to judgmental or evaluative:

1. No Responding: Sharing

2. Descriptive Responding

3 Analytic Responding

4. Reader Based Responding

5. Criterion Based or Judgment Based Responding


12 Readers Reading: Responding to College Student Writing, Richard Straub & Ronald F. Lunsford, Hampton Press, 1995.


Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Thaiss' Syllabus


Qualitative Research Resources

Need to Know: Social Science Research Methods (McGraw-Hill) by Lisa McIntyre

Creswell's *Research Design.*

Coffey & Atkinson, _Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies_

Strauss & Corbin, _Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory_

Creswell, John W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Obama Speech

But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Introduction

The public option had been kicking around for a while, however, in policy-wonk circles. Giving the uninsured an opportunity to purchase coverage through a Medicare-like health plan was seen as a useful means of putting competitive pressure on private insurers to provide decent coverage at low prices.


But as the debate has progressed, the public option has become an ideological flash point, igniting fears on the right that it will be the precursor to a government-run system like Canada's and some European countries'. Which is the same reason that many on the left like the public option so much. (Karen Tumulty, "The Strange Career of the Public Option," Time, 09/09/2009)


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1933212,00.html


In a speech to Congress on September 9, 2009, President Barack Obama re-affirmed his commitment to a public health insurance option, arguing that "an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange."


So, is Obama's proposal for a not-for-profit public option a good idea?


To Include in my Introduction

What is the current status of the health care debate (summary).
Timeline of Important Events in public option debate.
My own stake/position in this issue. Where i stand going in...

Obama Quotes:

it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down

They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Cannon Annotation

Cannon, Michael. "Fannie Med? Why a 'Public Option' Is Hazardous to Your Health." Policy Analysis. The Cato Institute. 27 July 2009. Web. 17 Nov 2009.

Michael Cannon is is the director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. According to Cato's website, their mission "is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace." According to his bio, in addition to working for Cato, Cannon worked for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee under Chairman Larry E. Craig.

Cannon's central argument in this piece is that

Monday, November 16, 2009

Notes on Cannon

Today, I'm writing about Michael Cannon's Cato Institute policy analysis "Fannie Med: Why a Public Option is Hazardous to Your Health." The first thing to consider here might be the title itself. Why?

I'm not so familiar with Fannie Mae, but clearly Cannon is making an analogy between the proposed public option and Fannie Mae. The problem is that I don't have the context to understand the analogy.

But...with a little research, I now think I get it. I learn from the Fannie Mae website that:
Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) chartered by Congress with a mission to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets.
Okay, so the public option would work similarly, I think (or would it?). It, too, would be government-sponsored. And the usefulness of this analogy for Cannon is captured in this passage, again from the Fannie Mae website:
On September 6, 2008, Director James Lockhart of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) appointed FHFA as conservator of Fannie Mae. The U.S. Department of the Treasury has agreed to provide up to $200 billion in capital as needed to ensure the company continues to provide liquidity to the housing and mortgage markets.
I guess the point that Cannon is making, then, is that the public option could end up like Fannie Mae--bankrupt. And if that happens, what? Why is a public option "hazardous to your health"? Because you'll end up with no health care coverage (if you choose the public plan)? Presumably, the government would bail out the public option, though, so I'm not sure I fully get the analogy.

Okay, well, now I need to spend some time summarizing Cannon's argument--or arguments. It seems as though one main claim that Cannon is making is that a public health insurance program WILL NOT increase competition in the health care market. Instead, a public plan will lead to the end of the private health care market. He writes:
President Obama’s vision of a health insurance exchange is not a market, but a prelude to a government takeover of the health care sector.
In another passage, which I find persuasive, he draws on the President's own words. He quotes the President as saying:
No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.
One of Cannon's main projects in this article is to show how this statement is not true ("You lie!")--to show that, in fact, many Americans will not be able to keep their doctors if the government creates a public plan and, perhaps more importantly, that we DO NOT want the government administering our health care plans.

Near the end of the article, Cannon succinctly states his position:

A new government program would supplant private insurance, despite offering inferior care at a higher cost.

There are three claims here and these are, I think, the central claims that Cannon is making:

1. A government plan would supplant (supersede and replace) private insurance
2. A government plan would offer inferior care
3. A government plan would have a higher cost (in dollars? in lives?)

Let's examine the support he provides for these claims.

CLAIM 1: A government plan would supplant (OED: supersede or replace) private insurance.

Why or how would a government plan supplant private insurance? Cannon provides two reasons:
  1. the public plan's premiums will not reflect their actual cost (thus, private plans will be unable to complete)
  2. the government has myriad ways of subsidizing its own programs, including a public health care program, so there is no way that a public plan could ever "go out of business" (whereas there are plenty of ways that private plans could)
As a result, Cannon suggests, there is no way that private plans would be able to compete with a public plan. A public plan will have lower premiums than private plans, forcing private ensurers to lower their premiums to a point that is unsustainable and a public plan will have government backing (as opposed to the "strategic reserves" that private plans are required to keep), so it will never face bankruptcy or insolvency.

CLAIM 2: A government plan would offer inferior care.

Cannon provides a number of reasons to support this claim.
  1. "government programs uniformly lag private insurance in adopting quality innovations" (6).
  2. "Government programs are not merely slow to innovate, they are outright hostile to quality innovations" (7).
  3. "government’s lack of a profit motive may not be an advantage at all. Profits are an important market signal that increase efficiency by encouraging producers to find lower-cost ways of meeting consumers’ needs. The lack of a profit motive could lead a government program to be less efficient than private insurance, not more" (4).
CLAIM 3: A government plan would have a higher cost (in dollars? in lives?)

I'm not as sure about this one--Cannon is certainly making the point in this piece that switching to the public plan could lead to...having to change to a new doctor, being given inferior care, and, perhaps, even lost lives. Is this a scare tactic? Maybe.

Cannon writes:
As the new program’s artificially low premiums crowd out private insurance, the government would exert even greater downward pressure on quality. (12)
At the end of the article, Cannon suggests that
If Congress wants to make health care more efficient and increase competition in health insurance markets [it] should convert Medicare into a program that gives seniors a voucher and frees them to purchase any health plan on the market [and reform] the tax treatment of employer-sponsored insurance with “large” health savings accounts [that] would give workers the thousands of dollars of their earnings that employers currently control, and likewise free workers to purchase any health plan on the market.
Here, we get a sense of the ideology driving Cannon's position. According to its website,
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.
When set against this backdrop, Cannon's hyper-concern about a "government take-over" of health-care and his proposal for how to reform the system with vouchers make sense. It's not just that Cannon and those at Cato are against the public option, it's that they are, generally, against an active federal government and for a more market-based approach.

So what are my questions about Cannon's article?

First, he assumes that the public plan will inevitably kill our private health insurance system. He sites some numbers (provided, again, by the Lewin Institute!) on how many Americans are likely to switch to the public plan:
A Lewin Group analysis estimated that Obama’s campaign proposal would move 32 million Americans into a new government-run plan. Lewin subsequently estimated that if Congress used Medicare’s price controls and opened the new program to everyone, it could pull 120 million Americans out of private insurance—more than half of the private market. The share of Americans who depend on government for their health care would rise from just over one- quarter to two-thirds. (3)
Despite the credibility issue for the Lewin group, it's worth asking--how many people will opt for the public plan. Is it going to change things as dramatically as Cannon suggests? He has a skepticism of government--is he just sketching a worse-case scenario or is what he is saying will happen going to happen, inevitably?

At another moment in this piece, he writes,
The “Blue Dog Coalition” of moderate House Democrats has offered several criteria that a new program would have to satisfy in order to do so. The Blue Dogs insist, for example, that the program would have to be completely self-sustaining (i.e., premium revenue would cover all costs), that the government not leverage its market power to favor the new program, and that government not enact any regulations that favor a new government program over private insurers. (8)
So, there are some who are taking steps to try to ensure that a public option does not automatically lead to the demise of the private system. Of course, Cannon is not buying what these folks are selling.

But it is, I think, important to point out that no publicly financed or government-based system is going to make Cannon happy. He's not for government playing a role in administering health care--at any level (note what he said about giving vouchers to seniors). Ideologically, he's going to argue that the market is the best way to distribute health care services, no matter what.




Sunday, November 15, 2009

The things we talk about when we talk about writing...

In very broad categories, these are idealized versions of the statements I want students to make (and this got totally away from me, but it seemed productive, so I kept going):

Foundations
-We are all born writers, born with every ability it takes to write well and to continue learning to write better.
-Writing is a forming practice, an inventive art that cannot be reduced to formula or recipe but that is always subject to judgment.
-Because writing is a practice, it must be practiced regularly to be learned.
-Because forming inventive arts are inherently difficult, writing also requires motivation.
-Writing always enters an ongoing social conversation of some kind, one that has its own conventions and ways.
-Writing offers the distinct advantage that any particular performance of it can be revised, rethought, and refined over a potentially infinite amount of time by a potentially infinite number of collaborators before that performance goes out for judgment.

Audiences
-Because it requires motivation, effective writing arises best out of some desire to affect the thinking of another human reader--or if not out of the much more difficult ability to write as if one wanted to do so, using extrinsic motivation.
-Readers approach a writing with some existing motivation to read, so an effective work of writing must respond to that motivation in ways that sustain or increase it; and doing so requires understanding readers and readers' contexst for reading.
-Social conventions can be modeled in sample works, but because every such work has a unique context, the goal must be to understand how the model works in its context, not simply to copy the model.
-In most "social conversations" at which composition aims, we strive to lead readers from familiar ideas through a reasoning process that ends up attempting to settle something that most readers thought was unsettled or unsettle something that we thought was settled.
-Readers follow such reasoning best if it is staged in logical series of apprehendable chunks.
-Readers follow such reasoning best if it is presented so that the parts obviously belong together and obviously follow one from the other, but the more that is managed by thinking and arrangement rather than by overt signals, the better.
-Readers follow such reasoning best and most willingly if the sentence style strikes a good balance between familiar ease and stimulating freshness.
-Writing at its most effective joins ongoing conversations in ways that win writers more prominent places in the conversations, join more prominent conversations, and change those coversations in ways desired by the writers; and those conversations ultimately become human history and destiny.

Reflections
-The main hardship of a writing class is that each instance must start all over from the ground, and so in some sense it never gets any easier.
-The main benefit of a writing class is that over time we become able to do increasingly difficult things with writing.
-The main lesson of a writing class is that we can generally produce better writing in the end than we thought we could in the beginning.
-By the end, each work of writing generates its own context, and the richest such contexts can be extraordinarily enjoyable experiences--that end.
-Whether for better or worse, every such context for a particular writing must be left behind--and grieved, according to its character--so that we can start the next one from its own ground.

Forms
-At every level of text, writing that has more shape will succeed over writing that has less.
-The most successful shapes will be uniquely suited to their content and context.
-In most writing for which composition prepares us, shapes move us from the simple and familar to the complex and new.
-In most contexts, "genres" arise that offer formats useful for ordinary purposes; and we should learn them and use them for those even while understanding their functions and limits.
-In most contexts, a paragraph is a mental "handful" of information that hangs together in a way that readers can summarize and "apprehend" before going on; the more advanced and up-for-challenge the readers, the bigger their "hands."

Sentences
-In most contexts, a sentence centers on a main action taken by a main "character," on which we can elaborate, usually after the main event; by default, once that event and its elaborations end, a sentence should also end; and when in doubt, we should err on the side of assuming that a sentence has ended (and yes, I'm being intentionally funny about that; har har).
-Most elaborations that come before the central event should locate us briefly in time, place, or idea.
-Most elaborations that come within the central event should concisely "redescribe" the main character to add the most vital information about that character--but only if there is no other good place to put that information.
-The best reason to change that order is if one of the elaborations presents more familiar information that helps set up the less familiar main event.
-The other good reason to change that order is to position the thing about which you need to elaborate at the end of the opening portion of the sentence, so that the elaborations closely follow it.
-The most effective elaborations concisely redescribe whatever comes right before them, using new terms and information to expand the reader's understanding of what has come before.
-The other good elaborations show some kinds of causal or logical connection between the first event and some other event.
-Coordination is the easiest elaboration for writers to use, and thus writers must constantly challenge ourselves to ask, first, whether it is the best form of elaboration for our readers, and, second, whether we have connected the parts so clearly that readers cannot miss the nature of the connection.
-Whenever a word refers back to some other word in any way, the nature of the reference must be utterly clear to even a careless reader; consistency of form between the two words goes a long way toward making that connection.
-Punctuation marks all have meanings, and it is better to try to learn their meanings than to try to learn all their "rules"--particularly in that published and professional writing constantly displays that we pay people to write despite their sometimes flagrant violation of punctuation rules. The period ends an event; the semicolon is a soft period; the colon is an equals sign; the dash is a wild card; the parenthesis is the back of an open hand on one side of the mouth; ellipsis means something has been left out that the reader does not need; a comma is an "oh, wait, let's add this/oh, by the way, I just added that"; a question mark says "I don't (or want to pretend that I don't) know, you tell me"; the exclamation point is a clear sign that somebody is trying to get out cheap instead of finishing the job, which is okay if the reader really can finish the job, but then why bother starting it?
-Humans have not yet mastered time travel; be alert to the temptation to shift to past, present and future based on your immediate needs and desires despite where you originally started. But the mind is a time machine; be alert to your power to shift your own and your reader's focus deliberately to any chosen place on the timeline of experience, so long as you let us follow what you are doing.

Words
- ack, I can't even get started on words. Way past time to get to other things.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Notes on Balto

There are a few things I note about Balto's article "Why a Public Health Insurance Option is Essential."

If I understand is argument correctly, according to Balto, the problem with our current system, and the reason we need a public option centers around issues of competition. His central claim is that, currently, there is not enough competition in the private health insurance industry to ensure "consumer choice" and "honest competition." He supports this claim with the following evidence, which is fairly convincing:
Health insurance markets are extraordinarily consolidated at the state and local level, according to the American Medical Association. In 39 states two insurers control at least 50 percent of the market, and in nine states a single firm controls at least 75 percent of the market, the AMA found. In 2007 the group reported that almost 95 percent of more than 300 metropolitan areas are highly concentrated.
He reminds us that
No competitor likes competition, especially when they are able to exercise market power, avoid regulation, and reap supracompetitive profits.
Clearly, the way Balto sees it, or the way he is constructing it, we have these big insurance companies that are behaving, essentially, like monopolies. The story that Balto is telling is a simple one and it speaks to liberal or progressives like me: the little guy (the consumer) is getting screwed by the big guy (in this case, the few private insurance companies that have all the control). The "balance of power," as he puts it early on in the article, is skewed in the direction of the powerful (the private insurance industry). Consequently, the government must act to ensure that consumers don't continue to get screwed.

Now, here are a few important questions:
  1. How did we get to the point where we have so few health care providers in all these states? Why is the private health insurance industry is so consolidated?
  2. What are the other options for shifting the so-called "balance of power" and countering the consolidation problem?
(And here is a side question: what are my health care provider options in RI? According to the Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner's "Consumer Assistance" webpage, if you want to buy your own health insurance in RI ("direct pay"), "Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island (BCBSRI) is the ONLY insurer at this time that offers direct pay plans in RI." As far as employer-based insurance plans, it appears, from this page, that there are three options in RI: Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United Health Care, and Tufts Health Plan. Is three a reasonable number for a state with a population our size? [Hard to say, I have nothing to compare it to.] And how do the numbers break down when it comes to market share? )

In response to the first question, according to Balto, the high level of consolidation occurs for a few reasons.
  1. "The entry barriers to these markets are substantial: employers are reluctant to switch plans and information is not transparent making it difficult to compare plan offerings. The time and cost to switch plans is substantial."
  2. "...dominant insurers make entry all but impossible by locking up providers through most favored nations arrangements or all products clauses that make it difficult for them to facilitate entry by making a more attractive deal with a new entrant."
As to the second question, what are other possible solutions to the problem of consolidation?Balto lists two:
  1. normal market forces will correct the problems eventually (won't happen, he says, again, because barriers to entry are too high)
  2. antitrust legislation against health insurers will create more transparent markets (won't happen, he says, because during the past 8 years, under the Bush folks, no anti-trust legislation was filed; furthermore "any antitrust action could correct harm in only a single market and would take several years and a substantial dedication of resources.")
Thus, Balto brings us to the conclusion that creating a public option is the best way to take on the problems of consolidation, lack of competition, and egregious deceptive practices. Why does he believe the public plan will work?
  1. A government-mandated public option will be able to break into markets otherwise closed to new entrants.
  2. Because public plans (e.g. medicare) have lower administrative costs and no need to generate a profit, they are cheaper and, thus, will force private insurers to get more competitive. Since private health insurance companies will have to compete with the public plan, they will be forced to try to contain skyrocketing premium prices (which, he argues, are at least partially a result of high profit margins: "From 2000 to 2007, the 10 largest publicly- traded health insurance companies increased their profits 428 percent, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion annually.")
Additionaly benefits of the private plan, not related to addressing the problem of consolidation, as Balto sees it:
  1. A public plan does not have "any incentive to flout or manipulate regulations. Its concerns are not profit, but the public health."
  2. "a public plan will set a model of consumer protection compliance, not abuse."
In sum, he argues,
Overall, competition from a public plan would force insurers to respond to market forces, reducing prices and improving consumer protections.
In sum, Balto's argument applies the logic of market economics to the problem of health care. It's not that we need a public option to ensure that all Americans have affordable health coverage (although, to be fair, he does say this once in the article: "As a society we have an obligation to make sure people have access to affordable health care."). It's not an altruistic argument he's making. It's an economic one: a public plan will restore competition. This is an interesting strategy for a liberal or progressive to take. I would expect an argument more along the lines of "it's the right thing to do." Instead, I get phrases like "revives genuine competition"
or "offering Americans a meaningful choice." Words like "competition" and "choice" are, of course, what Lazere refers to as cleans--they are words that evoke positive images and feelings.

Two final things:

First, Balto does address the primary concern expressed by those who oppose a public option: that a public plan "will ultimately lead to the demise of the private health insurance market." Essentially, he dismisses these concerns by saying "Their arguments are inconsistent with the economic realities of these markets." In response to the argument that we do not typically create public firms to create more competition in private markets, Balto argues that the health insurance market is different from other markets and in response to the argument that a public plan will act in predatory ways, he responds that private insurers have plenty of "reserves" to draw on as they learn how to compete with this public player. I feel like he treats these concerns a bit too lightly, though. I also find the argument that we do not create public entities to create more competition in private markets compelling.

Second, a friend recently brought up the problem of consolidation and argued that the real problem is that states or the feds make it difficult for private insurance companies to operate across state borders. In other words, legislation is the thing preventing competition and, consequently, greater transparency, in the private insurance industry. And sure enough, one of the respondents to Balto's article writes:
If in ... “39 states two insurers control at least 50 percent of the market, and in nine states a single firm controls at least 75 percent ... then the easy answer is to open up the borders and sell policies across state lines. Get rid of all those junky minimum requirements that state legislatures insist are necessary but fail to deliver value... just cost.
If this is the case, then Balto's entire argument falls to pieces. We might, first, allow private insurers an easier time entering markets. If we find that it is still too difficult for new firms to gain a foothold, we might then push for a public option. Balto does not mention the issue of laws that might restrict movement across borders and state lines at all in his article. He chocks the entire concentration problem up to impossibly high barriers to entry and the "provider networks" that the dominant players set up to make it difficult for newcomers to get a foothold. This might be an example of what Lazere calls selective vision--leaving out facts that might contradict his argument.

Final thoughts: so much of this argument hinges on the necessity of restoring competition. His entire argument operates on the playing field of health care is a good that can be delivered most efficiently by markets. His is a market-based argument, despite the fact that he is arguing for a public option. But one could argue that if private players couldn't get enough Americans covered in a fair and affordable manner, why would introducing one more player make a difference? The problem is not how many players there are, the problem is that the players are competing with one another in the first place. A single-payer system would ensure that we are all covered, if that is the goal.

Also, I am not persuaded that the public option ISN'T a backdoor strategy towards a single-payer system (and if so, why not just propose the single-payer system now?). The other respondent who wrote in at the bottom of the article writes:
The president has repeatedly said that if you like your private insurance, you can keep it. For many the reality is quite different. Many private employers will drop their private plans leaving their employees no choice [but to accept the public plan]. The Lewin Group (2009) estimates that one-third of Americans will be enrolled in the government plan, whereas only 28.8 percent will remain in private plans (down from 55.7 percent). And those who keep their private insurance will pay higher premiums [in order to make up what he argues will be under-payments made by the public option].
I am persuaded by this. But I need to look into it more (and The Lewin Group might be a source worth looking into). The question employers will ask is this: which is cheaper, opting out of insuring my employees and paying the mandatory tax or continuing to offer employer-sponsored plans? If the cost of ensuring them myself continues to grow in order to make up so-called under-payments by public plan participants (question about this), then employers will have to outsource their employee health plans and pay the tax (that tax better be pretty high if g'ment wants employers to continue to offer employer-sponsored health care).

One last thing: that respondent who cited a study by The Lewin Group--apparently The Lewin Group, whom Republicans have been rallying to their cause to defeat the public plan, has a what Lazere would refer to as a conflict of interest: they are owned by a private insurance company (United Health Group, my insurance provider!). Take a look at this ad that was created by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Of course, SEIU is a liberal group with its own agenda. You can also look at the article that exposed all this, from The Washington Post.

(How long did it take me to do all this work? Two hours.)

Balto Annotation

Balto, David. "Why a Public Health Insurance Option is Essential." Health Affairs: The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere. 17 Sept. 2009. Web. 11 Nov 2009.

David Balto is a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a progressive research institute whose mission, according to its website, "is to advance and support a progressive national policy agenda and lay out our vision of a progressive America." According to his bio, Mr. Balto's work focuses on "competition policy, intellectual property law, and health care."

According to Balto, the problem with our current private health insurance system, and the reason why we need a public option, centers around issues of competition. His central claim is that currently, there is not enough competition in the private health insurance industry to ensure "consumer choice" and "honest competition." Balto argues that the high level of consolidation has occurred because barriers to entry in the health insurance industry are high and because existing insurers have set up provider networks with doctors that make it difficult for new insurers to get a foothold. He argues that a public option is the best way of countering the problem of consolidation because a public plan will, de facto, be able to enter all health care markets and because public plans have lower administrative costs and no imperative to turn a profit, thus, they will stir up the pot and create greater efficiency and more affordability in highly consolidated private markets. Additionally, he points out, a public plan will do a better job of following regulations and lead the way towards greater consumer protections.

Balto's argument assumes the importance of market-based concepts such as "competition" and "choice." He is speaking the conservative's language. One major concern I have with his argument: if private insurers have been constrained, by state or federal legislation, in entering new markets (i.e. across borders), then Balto's entire argument crumbles. The consolidation, then, is the result of regulation and policy and not monopolistic or collusive behavior on the part of private insurers. I'll need to look into this a bit more to try to gauge whether the causes of consolidation really are what he claims they are. One person who responded to Balto's piece wrote: "the easy answer is to open up the borders and sell policies across state lines. Get rid of all those junky minimum requirements that state legislatures insist are necessary but fail to deliver value... just cost." This respondent suggests that Balto may be applying selective vision when bullet-pointing the causes of consolidation in the private health care market.


Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Timeline

Obama proposes the need for a public option.

  • 7/09: Bill is passed by Senate Health Committee which includes a public option (three House committees pass bills with a public option).
  • 8/16/09: Facing a month of tough criticism and angry citizens in town hall meetings, President Obama appears to back away from his commitment to the public option. As quoted in the NY Times: “The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.”
  • 9/09/09: President Obama gives a speech to a joint session of Congress and reaffirms his commitment to a public plan. "I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business," he says, "Let me be clear – [the public option] would only be an option for those who don't have insurance."
  • 10/13/2009: Olympia Snowe is the only Republican member of the Senate Finance Committee to vote for a health care bill crafted by committee chairman Max Baucus. The bill does not appear to contain a public option. Ms. Snowe has previously “opposed amendments to create a government insurance plan and would continue to do so” (according to the NY Times). But she has said that she is “open to a compromise under which a public plan could be “triggered” in states where people could not otherwise find affordable insurance.” The Times explains that “With its vote Tuesday, the Finance Committee became the fifth — and final — Congressional panel to approve a sweeping health care bill. The action will now move to the floors of the House and the Senate, where the health care measures still face significant hurdles.”
  • 10/22/09: Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is leaning toward including a government-run insurance plan in a health care bill he will soon take to the Senate floor.
  • 11/7/09: The Affordable Health Care for America Act passes the House of Representatives (220-215). One Republican voted for the bill and 39 democrats voted against it. According to the NY Times, this bill would require most Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties and would require most employers to provide coverage or pay a tax penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll. The bill would significantly expand Medicaid and would offer subsidies to help moderate-income people buy insurance from private companies or from a government insurance plan. It would also set up a national insurance exchange where people could shop for coverage. The bill has the endorsement of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
  • 11/18/2009: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposes a health care bill which would cost $849 billion over 10 years. The bill contains a public option, but includes a provision which would allow states to opt out, should they choose to.

Interesting Quotes/Data

More than 47 million Americans are uninsured, and according to Consumer Reports, as many as 70 million more have insurance that doesn’t really protect them. In the past six years alone, health insurance premiums have increased by more than 87 percent, rising four times faster than the average American’s wages, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report. American families in the lowest income group spend 20 percent of household income on health insurance. Health care costs are a substantial cause of three of five personal bankruptcies. (Center for American Progress)

The public plan is the most divisive issue in the health care debate, even though the Congressional Budget Office says than no more than 12 million people would end up signing up for such insurance. (NY Times Prescriptions Blog)

Reasons For/Against

For PUblic Plan:
  1. restore competition
  2. greater efficiency and lower costs,
  3. Unlike the current for-profit insurers, a public plan does not have the need or incentive to raise and protect its profit margins. Nor does it have any incentive to flout or manipulate regulations. Its concerns are not profit, but the public health.
Against PUblic Plan:

Opponents of the idea argue that
  1. a public health insurance plan competing with private insurers would lead to inferior health care,
  2. [would ] harm providers
  3. [would] drive the multibillion dollar for-profit health plans out of the market. (Center for American Progress)
Against current system:

The lack of competition and record of egregious deceptive practices demonstrates the need for a public plan. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/09/17/why-a-public-health-insurance-option-is-essential/

Friday, November 6, 2009

Teaching Business/Tech Online

In Winter 2007, Technical Communication Quarterly published a special issue
on "Online Teaching and Learning: Preparation, Development, and
Organizational Communication." You might find some of the rationales for and
approaches to teaching online writing courses useful in developing your
case.

Intro To Comp Studies (Undergraduate Course)

From WPA-L (Nov. 2009):

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:10:11 -0600
From: "Byard, Vicki" <V-Byard@NEIU.EDU>
Subject: Undergraduate Intro to Comp Studies course

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CA5CB0.E23A43B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My department is developing an upper-level undergraduate course for =
English majors that would serve as an introduction to composition =
studies. Our goals for the course are to ensure that our English majors =
(many of whom go on to teach English in high schools) are knowledgeable =
about major issues in composition studies. We also hope to use the =
course as a means of recruiting talented majors for our MA in =
composition track. =20
=20
If your institution offers a similar undergraduate course, I'd greatly =
appreciate receiving a course description and syllabus, on or off list.
=20
Vicki Byard
Professor of English
Coordinator of the First-Year Writing Program
Northeastern Illinois University

---

From: Writing Program Administration [mailto:WPA-L@asu.edu] On Behalf Of By=
ard, Vicki
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 12:10 PM
To: WPA-L@ASU.EDU
Subject: Undergraduate Intro to Comp Studies course

My department is developing an upper-level undergraduate course for English=
majors that would serve as an introduction to composition studies. Our go=
als for the course are to ensure that our English majors (many of whom go o=
n to teach English in high schools) are knowledgeable about major issues in=
composition studies. We also hope to use the course as a means of recruit=
ing talented majors for our MA in composition track.

If your institution offers a similar undergraduate course, I'd greatly appr=
eciate receiving a course description and syllabus, on or off list.

Vicki Byard
Professor of English
Coordinator of the First-Year Writing Program
Northeastern Illinois University

---

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:59:57 -0600
From: Kaye Adkins <kadkinsphd@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Undergraduate Intro to Comp Studies course

--0016e6d5667a3ec3f704777cf0b5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Although it isn't in my course rotation any more, we have an undergraduate
course, "Introduction to Composition Theory" that is required of all English
Education majors. The faculty who share responsibility for the course teach
it pretty much the same way I have. We still haven't found any better books
than the two on the syllabus (but we're always open to suggestions).
Finding something appropriate to undergraduate secondary ed students is a
challenge.

Course policies/syllabus:
http://www.missouriwestern.edu/eflj/syllabi/2006/Fall/ENG364-01.html (Sorry
for the broken link. We changed servers recently, so . . . )
Course schedule: http://staff.missouriwestern.edu/users/kadkins/CompTheory

The final project for the class has always gotten terrific results. The
students work in groups to analyze a composition textbook for the underlying
pedagogical approaches/ theories (or lack thereof). We have a collection of
a variety of textbooks that includes first editions of textbooks by
Kinneavy, D'Angelo, and Elbow. I've attached the assignment for anyone who
is interested.

Kaye Adkins

---

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:19:09 -0700
From: Kristen Seas <seask@UNCW.EDU>
Subject: Re: Undergraduate Intro to Comp Studies course

Vicki,
I'm piloting just such a course this semester here at UNC Wilmington. Here's
a link to the course website I created and used for the class:
http://www.peithograph.net/teaching/307_F09/index.htm

Rather than approaching this comp studies as a course on pedagogy - which
seems to dominate the tenor of much of our research and grad courses in the
same subject - I'm teaching the course more as "Theories of Writing" and
directing the students towards an articulation of who they are as writers
from a theoretical perspective. The prevailing assignment is a Self-Study
Portfolio where they reflect on a piece of their writing and the process
that went into it, followed by another paper on how they might approach that
same writing situation different given what they've read in the class, and
then writing a reflection on who they are as writers using the theoretical
terminology they've acquired.

I have also been delightfully surprised by their engagement with the theory
and the challenging readings. I'm using Miller's new Norton anthology this
time. But I do think if I teach the course again, I might use Villanueva's
_Cross-Talk in Comp Theory_ instead, just because I found the selections in
Miller's anthology to be more pedagogically-oriented and lacking in certain
texts that I'd like to bring in (like Flynn's "Composing as a Woman") that
might speak more to writerly identity than the teaching of writing.

That said, in the first half of the semester, we had some wonderful (even
heated) conversations about the discipline of English studies and the
different paradigms and ideologies that have shaped how we view writing. If
you do get to go forward with the course, I hope you have as much luck as
I've had.

Kristen

---

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:05:13 -0600
From: "David M. Grant" <david.grant@UNI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Undergraduate Intro to Comp Studies Course

Vicki, Kristen, Kaye, and Rebecca,

I teach a course like this here at Northern Iowa. I have a web page
under construction, but most of my online material I put on our
eLearning (Blackboard) site. It was simply easier. Also, I am in the
middle of a budget battle over adjunct money, so I will be brief. But, I
can forward a syllabus to whomever was interested.

I use Miller's Norton anthology supplemented with other readings because
not only do we have future teachers as audience, we also have
professional and creative writing minors. So, it is a pretty eclectic
group of students which I think is a strength. Like Kristen, I find
lively debates about English studies, its history, configuration, etc.
We cover different philosophies and taxonomimes of the field, reflect on
the readings and our own writing, collaborate with other students, and
conduct some kind of empirical observation. We even look at some of the
ways the field's participants are organized through technologies and
bodies such as WPA-L. It is really a fun class to teach and I am always
energized by it!

Best of luck!

David M. Grant
Coordinator of Writing Programs
Department of English
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0502
(319) 273-2639
david [dot] grant [at] uni [dot] edu

---

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:31:55 -0500
From: Dr Laurie McMillan <lmcmillan@MARYU.MARYWOOD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Undergraduate Intro to Comp Studies course

--0016e6d7e4e11dedb804778e26ce
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Vicki,

I'm attaching my syllabus for an undergrad course called Composition: Theory
& Practice. I use Cross-Talk in Comp Theory and take a chronological
approach for a good part of the semester. I wasn't sure if I even liked this
approach when I first tried it out, but it's actually cool the way students
end up tracing the development of the field to some degree as themes appear
and reappear in different guises.

I'm also loving reading other responses to this thread. Lots of great ideas!

Best,
Laurie

Teaching Reading

1. Summarizing

Round One: For a difficult reading assignment, ask students to write a 250-word summary (or whatever you think would be an appropriate length), and bring 3-4 copies to class. In small groups or pairs, have students exchange and read each other’s summaries, marking up any points they think need to be changed or revised. I ask students to underline inaccuracies, mark passages that are the student’s views or evaluations rather than author’s, and indicate with an asterisk any portion of the summary that provides disproportionate coverage of a minor point. Then the group should discuss the differences they see, with the goal of choosing the most accurate of the summaries to share with a larger group in round two. Groups can also choose to combine and/or revise the summaries based on their discussion. When two summaries diverge in their interpretation of some aspect of the assigned reading, students must examine the differences, consult the text for clarification, and d!

ebate why one student’s understanding is more accurate than another’s. This discussion requires close, attentive reading, and in the process students will deepen or complicate other group members’ assumptions about particular points in the text. Inevitably, students will also begin to share their reactions to and views on the material, and this provides an excellent starting point for further classroom debate and application.

Round Two: This round serves as a “check point” to ensure that each group has accurately understood the material. Have two or more groups combine into a larger group. Each smaller group then reads its selected summary out loud, and then the larger group examines their differences and similarities in order to choose the best one. These can then be shared aloud with the entire class as the basis for a deeper discussion and clarification of key concepts. It may also be an opportunity to examine the structure of the assigned reading, and to evaluate its logic, evidence, and/or methodology.

Round Three: Ask each group to take their summary and further condense it into a much smaller number of sentences. As the groups finish, have a representative type the short summary on the computer so that the class can compare and discuss them together. These shorter summaries require students to identify the center of the reading and distinguish it from important (but peripheral or supporting) arguments.

At any stage in this activity, you can focus the discussion on matters such as: difficult passages or terms around which there still may be confusion; how students discerned major points from examples, supporting evidence, or sub-arguments; and what students learned about summary writing by engaging in the class activity. You may even want to survey students about the extent of revision their own summaries needed once they had discussed the reading with classmates, or, depending on the course level, you might spend some time on basic summary conventions such as using attributive tags.

2. Marginalia:

I've developed two different activites using marginal notes, but I'll describe just one here. I give students a check list with four different types of marginal notes that a reader can make: summarize/comprehend; interact/evaluate; extend; rhetorically analyze.

Their assignment is to mark up a reading only with marginalia -- no underlining or highlighting. I require that they include marginal notes from all four categories. In class, discussing their notations results in a rich discussion. Most important, it makes the reading process explicit and discussing this is the most valuable part of the activity.

From WPA-L
Mary Goldschmidt, Ph.D.
Director, The Writing Program
The College of New Jersey
609.771.2864
10/31/09

Also:

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Writing Majors/Minors

In addition to the list that NCTE/CCCC is keeping on writing majors/minors, there is this resource:

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Talk for Maureen's class...

1. Why did I choose to pursue this career? Where did my interest in comp/rhet come from?

My interest in composition/rhetoric happened gradually. I never set out to get a Ph.D. in comp/rhet.

Went to Iowa to get an MAT to teach h.s. English. Like a lot of students, I had no exposure to the field of composition or rhetoric as an undergraduate at UNH.
  • Bonnie's Approaches to Teaching Writing Course (freewriting; writing as thinking or write to learn; writing a paper about Dale over the course of the entire semester; reading Murray's The Craft of Revision). The idea that at Iowa, I began to learn the theory behind what so many of my writing teachers had asked me to do at UNH.
  • Working as Bonnie's research assistant (helping edit a book on teacher literacy narratives; transcribing Murray interviews for induction of his materials into the Poynter institute)
  • The Iowa Portfolio Group/Attending first conferences (UNH and NCTE, fall 1996)--a glimpse at the profession and how things work.
  • During the second year, teaching FYC at Iowa, having a "lab" where I could try out some of the things that I was learning in my coursework (freewriting, writing conferences, group workshops, portfolio assessment, etc)
After student teaching and then teaching h.s. for one year, I noticed that I was moving away from the conversation about how writing is taught and learned. I wanted to get back into that conversation and, hopefully, to contribute to it in some way. Enrolled at UNH.

2. A bit about my current work.

After teaching h.s. for one year, I tried my hand at working as an adjunct. When you need money, you'll take just about any position you can find (describe range of teaching experiences--community college, online, in corporate, and at traditional colleges/universities).

Working with adult learners at GSC as an important moment--also, watching my mother fly to Chicago to graduate with her bachelor's degree at mid-life--the confluence of these two things.

At the time of dissertation, a range of possibilities, but feeling myself pulled back to the adults withi whom I worked at NSC and reflecting on my lack of preparation for that kind of teaching (before and during grad school) and my lack of knowledge about those students themselves. I began to imagine a project--something that would have been useful for someone like me. I was my own audience--what could have helped prepare me for that work? That is the project I created and still work towards. Descriptive and qualitative. Briefly discuss project.

At the center of this work and my work, an interest in people--how they learn to write (or fail to), what they write and why, how they transition between writing contexts (like school and work).

As I begin to wind down on this project and look to the future, possible future work--continued work with adult or nontraditional students making the transition to academic literacy or, perhaps, with undergraduates making the opposite transition, from school to work.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Course Descriptions

UNH's Technical WRiting:

ENGL 502 - Technical Writing
Credits: 4.00
A writing course focusing on effective communication of technical information. Writing of various technical documents, such as business letters, proposals, reports, brochures and web pages. Special emphasis on document design usability, visual rhetoric, and the use of technology in writing. Special fee. Writing intensive.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

More on Maureen's class

Today, brief meeting with Maureen; clarified intentions of talk to grad students:

She wants me to focus on two things:

1. Why did I choose to pursue this career? Where did my interest in comp/rhet come from?
2. A bit about my current work.

On number 1--formative experiences: Bonnie's "Approaches to Teaching Writing" class; Donald Murray and the idea of writing as thinking; my own experiences teaching writing at Iowa. This was a rich time of development in my professional life--that year or two at Iowa. Also, membership in the Iowa Portfolio Group and the trip to NCTE in fall 1996 and the UNH conference in fall 1996.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Writing Program Notes

Options:

1. Writing Minor (English Dept)
2. Major: Multimedia Writing & Technical Communication

ASU:

Digital Media/Rhetoric in English Department

ENH 364: Digital Media in the Humanities and Arts
TWC 301 General Principles of Multimedia Writing

Rhetoric:

ENG 472 Rhetorical Studies

AT THE POLYTECHNIC CAMPUS

Dept.: Multimedia Writing & Technical
Communication

The Bachelor of Arts in Multimedia Writing and Technical Communication is the only undergraduate technical communication degree program available in the state of Arizona. Multimedia writing is writing that incorporates graphics, sound, design, and media. Technical communication is applied workplace communication that makes technical information understandable and available to many audiences. In the multimedia writing and technical communication program, students learn how to produce, design, and manage information using both traditional and developing technologies.

Core

• TWC 301 General Principles of Multimedia
• TWC 401 Principles of Technical Communication
• TWC 411 Principles of Visual Communication
• TWC 421 Principles of Writing with Technology
• TWC 431 Principles of Technical Editing

Clemson:

Writing
A minor in writing requires 15 credits as follows:

Business and Technical Option-
AP EC 351 or G C 104, CP SC 120, ENGL 304 or 314, 490, 495.

Journalism Option-
ENGL 231, 333, 334, 335; one of the following: AP EC 351, CP SC 120, G C 104, ENGL 217, 304, 304, 312, 314, PHIL 102, SPCH 250, THRD 468, and any course approved by the Chair of the English Department.

Writing Pedagogy Option-
ENGL 312, 400, 401, 485; elective (three credits), any 300- or 400- level writing course offered by the Department of English.

Creative Writing Option-
Drama- THEA (ENGL) 347, 447 (six credits), ENGL 430, and one of the following: ENGL 312, 410, 411.
Fiction- ENGL 345, 445 (six credits) 432, and one of the following: ENGL 312, 418, 425, 426.
Poetry- ENGL 346, 446 (six credits), 431, and one of the following: ENGL 312, 413, 416, 417.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Writing Program Websites

We're redesigning our FYC website. Anyone have suggestions about good ones? (WPA-L, 9/25/09):

See Colorado State U: http://writing.colostate.edu/, for a rich site
with many resources, including a writing studio for teachers and
students to create/complete assignments, swap drafts, keep blogs and
more.

See U. of Alabama: http://www.as.ua.edu/fwp/welcome.html for a program
that outlines its outcomes, explains its courses and curriculum. This
is clear, easy to navigate.

UMass Amherst's program has a great site as well:
http://www.umass.edu/writingprogram/ with a good mix of news, course
info, resources.

I really like mine (!!):http://www.montclair.edu/writing/ at Montclair State University -- it hosts all things writing "Writing at Montclair" -- the first-year writing program, the Center for Writing Excellence, graduate programming in writing, the graduation requirement in writing. Teacher and student portals.

You might look through the list of program websites here:

http://wpacouncil.org/writingprograms/index.html


ENGL 350

Digital Rhetoric
Literacy and technology

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Commenting on student work

From WPA-L, fall 2009:

O'Neill and Fife's "Listening to Students: Contextualizing Response to
Student Writing" (Comp Studies 27.2) and "Moving Beyond the Written Comment:
Narrowing the Gap between Response Practice and Research" (CCC 48.2).

One of my favorite resources on response is Brian Huot's chapter "Reading Like a Teacher: Toward a Theory of Response" in his book (Re)articulation Writing Assessment for Teaching and Learning. It provides a snapshot of some of the big ideas in response since the '80s and creates a framework for thinking about response that is comprehensive but manageable. I read the chapter this summer with the new TAs at Florida State, and it generated rich conversation. I was especially impressed by how much they engaged with the text even though it's not a "how-to manual" for response.


Friday, September 18, 2009

Life Writing: Notes on a Course

This afternoon, read an interesting review in CE of a book, an edited collection on life writing. The title of the book is:

Teaching with Life Writing Texts Miriam Fuchs and Craig Howes, MLA 2008. (400 pp)

Learned a lot from this article about the existence of a field called "life writing."

Learned about theorists I might look into:

Philippe Lejeune
Paul de Man
Georges Gusdorf

Learned how this is applicable to teaching:
In life writing classes, for example, students might compose their own creative narratives, collect and transcribe oral histories, or produce illustrated graphic narratives, blogs, or video narratives. (80)
I'm thinking that 'life writing' is an interesting term to use to create a course about which I have probably always wanted to teach.

The citation for the article (which has a short, but good Works Cited) is:

Elmwood, Victoria. "Not your Parents' Curriculum: Multiple Genres, Technologies, and Disciplines in teh Life Writing Classroom. CE 72.1 (Sept 2009): 80-88.


Wednesday, September 16, 2009

More online resources

The term appears to be OWI (Online Writing Instruction).

Resources:


---

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:55:21 -0400
From: Beth Hewett <beth.hewett@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: conferences/resources for hybrid writing classes

Hi Sara,

I'm writing on behalf of the CCCC Committee on Best Practices in Online
Writing Instruction. We've been working on research in this issue--directly
related to your concerns--for the past 3 years and expect to continue this
work for a few more years. Our committee will be represented at CCCC 2010
with a Friday panel presentation and a Friday night SIG. We'd love to have
you and your colleagues join us for these opportunities to talk about OWI.
Our panel presentations always allow time for questions and ideas from the
audience, as does our SIG. Please do put us on your list!

To that end, be on the lookout in mid-January for a survey on best practices
in OWI; it will be advertised in the elists, as well as through NCTE. We'll
certainly want to get your input (and that of everyone on this list).

Regards,
Beth

Beth L. Hewett, Ph.D.
Chair, CCCC Committee for Best Practices in Online Writing Instruction (OWI)
NCTE Professional Development Consultant
beth.hewett@comcast.net

Friday, September 4, 2009

Notes for Maureen's class

This morning, reading the "Introduction" to the new Norton guide to composition studies. Thought I would include a few passages that might be of use for my presentation to Maureen's class on comp/rhetoric.

its democratic spirit (xxxv)

the field today is easily the discipline most alert to questions of textual production and reception (xxxvi).

since its early emergence as an underling gatekeeper in nineteenth century universities...the field has overlaid conservative Western attitudes about linguistic credentials on a more inclusive American democratic individualism that values practical personal choices. (xxxvi)

The typical purposes of composition research and scholarship may be unfamiliar to those encountering them for the first time. For various good reasons, the range of inquiry encountered in this field surprises those new to it. Many still imagine writing largely as an occasion for evaluation and thus expect the discipline that studies it to focus on assessment, grading methods, and students' achievement or its absence. But instead they encounter a broad range of repeatedly addressed topics, diverse methods of research, multiple scholarly genres, and an unusual variety of authorial sources. (xxxvii)

.,.this field's object of study is one of the most complex human activities. Composition studies uncovers expressive processes that are easily separated from their human origins to become "text," an object that may or may not be absorbed by readers and a cultural artifact whose opacity invites many inquiries and speculative interpretations. The field thus may blend into any discipline within the humanities, social sciences, and education studies... This often-cited interdisciplinarity is neither recent nor novel among disciplines that investigate processes like writing that aim for an immediate material result. (xxxviii)

Composition research has accumulated an array of scholarly approaches to forming its questions and gathering evidence, and then to fitting these processes to appropriate genres. (xxxviii)

the field of composition studies marked the beginning of its research program with the 1963 publication of Research in Written Composition, by Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer. Taht brief book analyzed 504 empirical studies of school writing instruction and their disappointing results. (xxxlx)

All pointed out that imagination, inventiveness, and thus writing may be improved by following a composing process, but not improved when taught as elements of a finished textual product. (xxxlx)

this section includes other research projects that established many of the topics that have remained important to composition studies: the relation of writing as a medium to a writer's preparation to write, the variety of forces that sponsor each act of writing, the conscious acts undertaken by the writer, the range of attitudes toward required college-level writing courses, and stances toward acts of revision. (xliii)

Perhaps the most unsettling subtext and resulting argument in this part of the book, one made in diverse ways, is that neither a writer nor a text can be evaluated accurately against a universal standard measuring either "good writing" or "good writers" if such evaluation is based on only one instance of composing over one time period, perhaps in one place. (xliv)