Showing posts with label WAW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WAW. Show all posts

Friday, March 24, 2017

Composing Focus: Shaping Temporal, Social, Media, Social Media, and Attentional Environments

Abstract: Writers must learn to control factors that influence the ability to focus, especially in what some call a culture of distraction. In our efforts to promote metacognition and flexible writing processes, writing teachers need to engage students in study and discussion of factors in our temporal, social, media, social media, and attentional environments that influence focus while composing. This article examines these facets of our contemporary scenes of writing by reviewing recent research in composition studies and psychology about writing and attention, discussing the results of a survey of undergraduate writers’ composing practices, and sharing insights from assignments that help writers notice important elements of their environments. The article recommends assignments and questions to encourage reflection on writers’ interactions with these elements in order both to find focus and to promote process-related transfer and adaptability in our ever-changing scenes of writing.

Composing Focus: Shaping Temporal, Social, Media, Social Media, and Attentional Environments

Thursday, July 24, 2014

A Greatest Hits List for WAW (from “Process and Intention”: A Thirtieth-Year Reflection)--Richard Gebhardt

“Process and Intention”: A Thirtieth-Year Reflection (The Writing Instructor, December 2011)

"Process and Intention: A Bridge from Theory to Classroom” is rooted in a time when intuitive, experience-based awareness that we should "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product" (Murray 3) was bolstered by systematic research into the complexity of writing. Lots of years have passed since those days, so as a reminder, let me mention five 1970s researchers whose work seemed to me then (and still does, for that matter) to suggest a complex idea of writing as a dynamic interaction of brain, hand, and eye.

Janet Emig’s “Writing as a Mode of Learning” (1977) draws on work in psychology, physiology, education, and other fields to describe writing as a complex activity in which several different means of dealing with actuality—enactive, by doing (hand), iconic, via image (eye), and symbolic, through words (brain)--“are simultaneously or almost simultaneously deployed” (10).

Sharon Pianko’s “Reflection: A Critical Component of the Composing Process” (1979) emphasizes the importance, during writing, of reflection (e.g., pausing to rescan completed text to make changes, to bridge to more writing, to reflect on plans, etc.).

Nancy Sommers’s “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers” (1980) defines revision not as a separate, final stage of writing but as “a sequence of changes in a composition—changes which are initiated by cues and occur continually throughout the writing of a work” (45).

Sondra Perl’s “Understanding Composing” (1980) explores the concept of projective structuring by which writers measure against possible reader needs their intentions for a piece of writing and the direction in which they sense the piece is developing before them as they write.

Linda Flower’s and John Hayes’s “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing” (1981) offers a complex description of writing based on cognitive psychology, the most lasting element of which perhaps is the multi-box diagram a few pages into their article.

Key Phrases:

  • the writing-process research movement
  • blended cognitive/social approaches

Gebhardt's Own WAW Greatest Hits Contributions:
  • “Initial Plans and Spontaneous Composition: Toward a Comprehensive Theory of the Writing Process” (1982)
  • “Writing Processes, Revision, and Rhetorical Problems” (1983)
  • “Changing and Editing: Moving Current Theory on Revision into the Classroom” (1984)
  • “Computer Writing and the Dynamics of Drafting” (1986)
On Collaborative Writing (throughout the writing process)

“Teamwork and Feedback: Broadening the Base of Collaborative Writing” (College English, 1980)

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Contribution from David Barton (ecologies of literacy)

This morning, I'm reading the chapter "Public Definitions of Literacy" in David Barton's book, Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. As I'm reading, I'm thinking that this would be an excellent chapter to ask students to read early on in a WAW course to get them thinking about the question: What is literacy or what is writing? The chapter unpacks common misconceptions about literacy--or what Barton sees as misconceptions. Specifically, it focuses on the skills and cultural literacy views--but there is a lot more in it that is of use.

Because students have internalized these "public definitions of literacy" and because they guide their thinking about literacy, asking them to read this chapter and interrogate these assumptions could be enormously useful in framing the start of a WAW course.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

WAW and Lytle

So, I'm re-reading Lytle's article "Living Literacy: Rethinking Development in Adulthood" and seeing connections between WAW and my teaching and her conceptual framework of four dimensions of literacy development over time.

Paper 1: Beliefs about Writing, Language, Literacy

She begins with discussing Beliefs on the rationale that "adults' beliefs may function as the core or critical dimension in their movement toward enhanced literacy. As beliefs are articulated and sometimes re-structured through interactions with teachers, texts, and other learners, the other dimensions of development--adults' practices, processes, goals, and plans--begin to reflect, and in turn, to inform these changes. Although these developmental processes appear to be reciprocal and recursive, there is some evidence that beliefs may be a primary source or anchor for other dimensions of growth. Adult learners bring to literacy programs beliefs about language and learning that inform and sometimes constrain their own development (387)

...the critical role of beliefs in shaping a learner's literacy processes and practices. (388)

Paper 2: Then a catalogue of current practices...

Paper 3: Autoethnography ("One approach to investigating the repertoire of an individual learner or a group of learners involves analyzing the types of moves and strategies used in engagement with particular reading and writing tasks" [393]).

The processes dimension of literacy development highlights readers' and writer's behaviors immediately before, during, and after reading and writing, and how these behaviors reflect adults' beliefs. (394)

The processes dimension of literacy development highlights readers' and writer's behaviors immediately before, during, and after reading and writing, and how these behaviors reflect adults' beliefs. (394)

Paper 4: Plans

Where does this fit? Seems to me that it might be a short piece at the beginning and a piece again at the end?

When adults who enter programs are given the opportunity at the outset to explore a range of possibilities, they typically go beyond general interest in "becoming better readers" to name particular reading and writing tasks they hope to accomplish, often for specific purposes and audiences. (395)

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Before there was WAW, there was...

What can be transferred from general composition to other domains, I believe, is the idea that writing in all fields is shaped by an interactive relationship between the way an intellectual community constructs knowledge in writing and the genres it uses to configure that knowledge. In brief, here is how this dynamic works: Writers create texts to "do business" in certain communities of readers and writers. Within those communities, there are specific ideas, often tacit, about what constitutes acceptable subject matters to write about. About each of these acceptable subject matters, there are, within communities of readers and writers, certain status quo ideas, attitudes, and propositions, discursive entitlements Chaim Perelman calls the "starting points for argumentation." Within these communities there are, in addition, specific kinds of rhetorical "moves" or "transactions" that a writer is expected to make in order to lead readers to perceive a central idea or adhere to a thesis. Aristotle, for example, in teaching the art of rhetoric for fourth century Athenian orators, calls these "moves" enthymemes. Within these communities there are also definite ideas, again often tacit, about what functions written texts should serve--that is, the degree to which they should "shift the scene" from the written text at hand to some other arena of action.

All these aspects of "knowledge work"--acceptable subjects, starting points, transactions, and functions of texts--are constrained by the kinds of genres within which the community has chosen to conduct its business. Indeed, as I argue, the genres of different communities actually emerge from the knowledge-work its members must perform. In other words, whether a person writes about a specific subject matter, chooses to detail specifically what she believes her readers presently know and think about the subject, engages in certain kinds of rhetorical moves (for example, definition or comparison and causal reasoning), and urges some specific action depends on the genre she is expected to produce. The choice of genre also dictates, to a finer degree than other prescriptive rules, how the writer must construct paragraphs, sentences, and words.

This knowledge work-genre dynamic is what students can learn in general composition that can be transferred to the writing they must do in other courses. It is this dynamic that I believe ought to constitute the "content" of college writing instruction. (188-189)

Joliffe, David. "The Myth of Transcendence." Pedagogy in the Age of Politics: Writing and Reading (in) the Academy. Eds. Patricia A. Sullivan, Donna J. Qualley. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1994. 183-194.


Tuesday, November 16, 2010

ReThinking WAW (order)

It seems to me that a more useful place to start a WAW course might focus on discourse community, move to academic writing to study a bit about how writing functions in academic discourse communities, and then move to individual writers, and spend a bit of time on composing processes of individual writers. I feel like the way I have been doing it has spent too much time on the individual and not enough time on the social. So, a re-organized course might look like:
  • Discourse Community/Community of Practice/Activity System (including genre knowledge)
  • Academic Discourse Communities
  • Composing Process of Individuals
I am also thinking about how a literature review is a nice culminating assignment for this course because it is a great test of academic writing in the sense that students must organize and present a conversation on a particular topic. I'm struck by the distinction between reporting on a conversation and contributing to a conversation and not at all sure that contributing to a conversation need be a part of this course (I do believe it is possible, but I think it is a tall order for a college freshmen). So, a culminating series of assignments:
  • Annotated Bibliography
  • Literature Review
  • Conference Presentation
To resolve the issue of conducting primary or original research, I might ask the student to write a short follow-up paper in which he suggests potential research questions, based on what he has seen in the review of literature. The idea being--now you know what we know, tell us what we should know or have missed or need to know more about, and why. This might be an interesting way to take the project one step forward without committing to an "experiment" or whatever.

My WAW Bibliography

Academic Writing

Bernhardt, Stephen. "Seeing the Text." CCC 37.1 (Feb. 1986): 66-78.

Ketter, Jean & Judy Hunter. "Creating a writer's identity on the boundaries of two communities of practice." Writing Selves/Writing Societies: Research from Activity Perspectives. Eds. Charles Bazerman & David R. Russell. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse, 2003. 307-329.

MacDonald, Susan Peck. "Problem Definition in Academic Writing." College English 49.3 (March 1987): 315-331.

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

Haas, Christina. "Learning to Read Biology: One Student's Rhetorical Development in College." Written Communication 11 (1994): 43-84.

Haas, Christina. "Beyond 'Just the Facts': Reading as Rhetorical Action." In Hearing Ourselves Think: Cognitive Research in the College Writing Classroom (Eds. Ann M. Penrose and Barbara M. Sitko). New York: Oxford UP, 19-32.

Higgins, Lorraine. "Reading to Argue: Helping Students Transform Source Texts." In Hearing Ourselves Think: Cognitive Research in the College Writing Classroom (Eds. Ann M. Penrose and Barbara M. Sitko). New York: Oxford UP, 70-101.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Places to Publish Student Work

Writing and Rhetoric, a peer-reviewed journal for undergraduates.

The “young scholars” in our title is not a marker of a scholar’s age but rather of his or her experience with discursive inquiry in writing, rhetoric, and related topics. Thus, we invite all young scholars in the field to submit their work!

Young Scholars in Writing publishes excellent scholarship on topics tightly related to composition, rhetoric, and/or literacy studies. To be eligible for the Spotlight on First
Year Writing, a piece must have been written in a lower-division composition course
or by a first year student. Research papers on topics unrelated to composition,
rhetoric, and/or literacy studies will not be considered.

Xchanges


Sunday, February 7, 2010

Reading Study

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:16:36 -0600
From:
Subject: short survey on undergraduates and recreational reading

Hello, all -

I'm a new fellow-traveler on this list, intrigued to see so many
familiar names. With my colleague XXXXXX and a student
researcher, I am working on an article on a survey we took of our
students on recreational reading practices. We also surveyed academic
librarians, and now I would like to get some feedback from faculty who
teach undergraduates, particularly those who tend to pay attention to
their reading practices as an aspect of their teaching.

Among the questions we're investigating are: how do college students
feel about books and reading? Do their reading practices differ when
reading for fun rather than reading critically? What role does
pleasure reading play in life-long learning? What can academic
libraries do to encourage reading?

I have put together a survey addressing some of those issues that
might only take you a couple of minutes, unless you choose to comment.
It would make our article much richer if we have some faculty
perspective in the mix.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PL7QRHB

Thank in advance - and sorry for exacerbating chronic surveyitis.


Saturday, December 26, 2009

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.

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.

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.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Rhetoric of Instant Messaging

http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/hultrichins_im/hultrichins_im.htm

THE RHETORIC AND DISCOURSE OF
INSTANT MESSAGING
Computers and Composition Online, Theory into Practice

Christine A. Hult & Ryan Richins
Utah State University