My own writing experience has taught me that recopying is a valuable process. I, like Peter Kratzke, am a speedy typist, so it's really no big deal to retype a paper. I have had issues with versions of Word, and have ended up retyping things. I am always surprised how I improve the piece as I go along, not really having any intention of doing that. Another form of recopying, I think, is reading aloud. How often do we not notice poor grammar or multiple uses of the same word until we read aloud?
Any time I completely lose something I wrote, I figure it wasn't good enough anyway - it was a first draft, a pre-visioning of the final product. It can be so very empowering to get some words on a page. In some ways, it doesn't matter how good they are - it's just about getting started. I think, though, that there is a bad side. Sometimes I can never completely get away from what I have written - it hangs around and drags down my work. It resists my efforts to edit. I can change around the word order or substitute in another word that makes more sense, but ultimately I feel stuck with what I first wrote. There have been times I was glad to lose work so I could really start over.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Peer Review: Invaluable or Invalid?
The whole idea of peer review of writing has always given me a sick feeling - one similar to the feeling I get when contemplating collaborative writing. I'll admit that I want it both ways. I want to be the smartest and the best in the group (so my ego gets stroked) and I want to be in a group with the most brilliant individuals (so I get the benefit of that brilliance).
But peer review needs to seek a middle ground. It helps to be clear about the purpose of the peer review. I am still surprised that people don't know the difference between reading and commenting, proofreading, editing, and evaluating. Sometimes when students hand me a paper and ask me to edit it, what they really want is for me to read it and then praise them. They don't really want to discuss the content, and they certainly don't want me marking on the paper with a red pen.
As a freelance writer and editor, I often get "proofreading" jobs which turn out to be complete rewrites of someone else's work. Most amazing is how people think that my "little bit of proofreading" has made their work exactly as they intended. But I digress . . .
Perhaps a good first step is to define our goals. For example, what does the writer want when she asks someone to "read over" her paper? Will this step in any way improve the paper, or is the writer just eager to share her accomplishment with someone? I don't believe that a "read-over" is proper work for a peer review group.
What is the writer hoping to get when he asks for proofreading? In the professional world, proofeading is a job - a very specific, technical job - and not everyone is suited for it. Writers should proofread their own work carefully and repeatedly before they ask others to do it. After the proofreading has been done, writers must make a commitment to consider all proofreading notes and make the appropriate corrections. Writers must also be thorough and consistent in applying corrections. This is also not a step that I believe is suitable for a peer review group.
Editing is as much an art as writing is. Some say that the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald would have been nothing without the editing genius of Maxwell Perkins. I think their association probably reached the level of true collaboration. It seems to me that peer review groups can act as a many-headed editor, and can be enormously helpful to a writer. The editing stage is where you must ask yourself if you have fulfilled your aims for the piece of writing, and if you have done it in the most artful way, If you have not, you have work ahead of you.
Finally, there is evaulation, which to me means that the writing job is done, and someone is going to pronounce judgment on the piece. Of course, the writer may decide to rewrite (or burn the damned thing in the fireplace!) after evaulation, but that would be a new process. Our writing will be evaluated at some point, and it is never really finished. There comes a time when we have to decide to move on to something else and let earlier works lie as they are.
But peer review needs to seek a middle ground. It helps to be clear about the purpose of the peer review. I am still surprised that people don't know the difference between reading and commenting, proofreading, editing, and evaluating. Sometimes when students hand me a paper and ask me to edit it, what they really want is for me to read it and then praise them. They don't really want to discuss the content, and they certainly don't want me marking on the paper with a red pen.
As a freelance writer and editor, I often get "proofreading" jobs which turn out to be complete rewrites of someone else's work. Most amazing is how people think that my "little bit of proofreading" has made their work exactly as they intended. But I digress . . .
Perhaps a good first step is to define our goals. For example, what does the writer want when she asks someone to "read over" her paper? Will this step in any way improve the paper, or is the writer just eager to share her accomplishment with someone? I don't believe that a "read-over" is proper work for a peer review group.
What is the writer hoping to get when he asks for proofreading? In the professional world, proofeading is a job - a very specific, technical job - and not everyone is suited for it. Writers should proofread their own work carefully and repeatedly before they ask others to do it. After the proofreading has been done, writers must make a commitment to consider all proofreading notes and make the appropriate corrections. Writers must also be thorough and consistent in applying corrections. This is also not a step that I believe is suitable for a peer review group.
Editing is as much an art as writing is. Some say that the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald would have been nothing without the editing genius of Maxwell Perkins. I think their association probably reached the level of true collaboration. It seems to me that peer review groups can act as a many-headed editor, and can be enormously helpful to a writer. The editing stage is where you must ask yourself if you have fulfilled your aims for the piece of writing, and if you have done it in the most artful way, If you have not, you have work ahead of you.
Finally, there is evaulation, which to me means that the writing job is done, and someone is going to pronounce judgment on the piece. Of course, the writer may decide to rewrite (or burn the damned thing in the fireplace!) after evaulation, but that would be a new process. Our writing will be evaluated at some point, and it is never really finished. There comes a time when we have to decide to move on to something else and let earlier works lie as they are.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Patricia Bizzell
Bizzell's great conglomerated theory really appeals to me. I am interested in her ideas about discourse communities. I've been noticing over the last week how true this is. At our school, we work extensively with our students on culture. Lots of time is spent in exploring and mapping out teen culture, the family's culture, our school culture, and our community's culture. We use Venn diagrams (overlapping circles) to help the kids see that some of how they behave and express themselves with their families or their peers is appropriate for school or the workplace, and some is not.
People who are able to judge what sort of behavior is required in a social situation have more confidence and, usually, more success. I believe it would be a great gift to our students to help them identify the type of writing required in a situation, and help them gain the tools to do whatever kind of writing will succeed. This definitely hearkens back to the rhetorical triangle of audience-purpose-occasion.
I am eager to start working with kids to identify their various discourse communities (including the ones they don't yet know they will belong to) and really nailing down the types of writing required in each. It's a tantalizing idea, and one that I think could actually help out all our students, even the "good" writers.
Thank for a great presentation, Shaynee.
People who are able to judge what sort of behavior is required in a social situation have more confidence and, usually, more success. I believe it would be a great gift to our students to help them identify the type of writing required in a situation, and help them gain the tools to do whatever kind of writing will succeed. This definitely hearkens back to the rhetorical triangle of audience-purpose-occasion.
I am eager to start working with kids to identify their various discourse communities (including the ones they don't yet know they will belong to) and really nailing down the types of writing required in each. It's a tantalizing idea, and one that I think could actually help out all our students, even the "good" writers.
Thank for a great presentation, Shaynee.
David Bartholomae
Thanks to Emily's presentation, I now have a clearer understanding. It seems that Bartholomae is advocating a more formal approach to writing, one that strives to be academic. It is a common problem among high school students that they are unfamiliar with the formal tone or register required for academic and professional writing. They learned well in elementary school to write like they speak, for the sake of getting something on the page. Somehow that is all the instruction they got or remember.
I have seen a lot of high school essays that start, "Hi, this is my essay about the Civil War (World War I, World War II, etc.)." Maybe some of the problem lies in the fact that people so rarely speak in the formal register. Most kids have not heard this sort of discourse, and so they don't know how to imitate it in their writing.
This is an example of the "cultural commonplaces that sometimes predetermine how and what they write" (Mlynarczyk). If our students don't have any idea that speech could be more proper and formal, how could they ever adopt a more formal tone in their writing? Furthermore, I wonder if they know that thought can be more or less formal. That's a topic for Patricia Bizzell, who I will get to in a while.
Dr. Donna's Pedagogy Statement refers to her desire to be, at all times and in all endeavors, self-conscious. Bartholomae favors students positioning themselves, self-consciously (or purposefully) against the "common" discourse. I like this idea. I think our students should be taught to discern what level of formality is required in a writing (or speaking or thinking) situation, and them set themselves, on purpose, contrary to the way the general public might approach it. Self-consciousness, I believe, leads to being very present to the situation, and surely would lead to better writing.
I have seen a lot of high school essays that start, "Hi, this is my essay about the Civil War (World War I, World War II, etc.)." Maybe some of the problem lies in the fact that people so rarely speak in the formal register. Most kids have not heard this sort of discourse, and so they don't know how to imitate it in their writing.
This is an example of the "cultural commonplaces that sometimes predetermine how and what they write" (Mlynarczyk). If our students don't have any idea that speech could be more proper and formal, how could they ever adopt a more formal tone in their writing? Furthermore, I wonder if they know that thought can be more or less formal. That's a topic for Patricia Bizzell, who I will get to in a while.
Dr. Donna's Pedagogy Statement refers to her desire to be, at all times and in all endeavors, self-conscious. Bartholomae favors students positioning themselves, self-consciously (or purposefully) against the "common" discourse. I like this idea. I think our students should be taught to discern what level of formality is required in a writing (or speaking or thinking) situation, and them set themselves, on purpose, contrary to the way the general public might approach it. Self-consciousness, I believe, leads to being very present to the situation, and surely would lead to better writing.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Gerald Graff
Gerald Graff’s 2003 book Clueless in Academe has a chapter titled Unlearning to Write, in which I found solace. Graff advocates for plainer language, even in academic discourse.
I second that motion. My friends, you are killing me with your jargon. Between the comp-speak, rhet-chat, and teacher-talk, I’ve got quite a list of words to look up. Sometimes I am looking up the same word more than once. No doubt, I am the only one who is struggling. I believe that the function of jargon is to provide a shortcut among people who are in the know. Some day I will be in the know too, I hope.
Graff seems to be pulling back the curtain to expose the little man behind the wizard. He admits that he at first didn’t dare to write in a more vernacular tone because that would endanger his carefully-constructed persona. Now that he is an established academic, Graff is secure enough to abandon many of the academic conventions, and even says academics should write so that a non-academic could understand. He assures the reader that this is not the same as dumbing down.
I wonder where such suggestions would lead. Would simplicity in language lead to simplicity in thought? Would academic pieces of writing become longer because they wouldn’t use jargon as a shortcut to the ideas in question? Would the public become interested in reading academic writing? Would the public become interested in engaging in academic discourse?
I find it refreshing that one of the “gray-haired men” is willing to be critical of his field and his peers. On the other hand, it’s easy for him be critical. Graff is not trying to build a career and a life, and he is beholden to few. I’d love to know what some young academics think. Dr. Donna – what do you have to say?
I second that motion. My friends, you are killing me with your jargon. Between the comp-speak, rhet-chat, and teacher-talk, I’ve got quite a list of words to look up. Sometimes I am looking up the same word more than once. No doubt, I am the only one who is struggling. I believe that the function of jargon is to provide a shortcut among people who are in the know. Some day I will be in the know too, I hope.
Graff seems to be pulling back the curtain to expose the little man behind the wizard. He admits that he at first didn’t dare to write in a more vernacular tone because that would endanger his carefully-constructed persona. Now that he is an established academic, Graff is secure enough to abandon many of the academic conventions, and even says academics should write so that a non-academic could understand. He assures the reader that this is not the same as dumbing down.
I wonder where such suggestions would lead. Would simplicity in language lead to simplicity in thought? Would academic pieces of writing become longer because they wouldn’t use jargon as a shortcut to the ideas in question? Would the public become interested in reading academic writing? Would the public become interested in engaging in academic discourse?
I find it refreshing that one of the “gray-haired men” is willing to be critical of his field and his peers. On the other hand, it’s easy for him be critical. Graff is not trying to build a career and a life, and he is beholden to few. I’d love to know what some young academics think. Dr. Donna – what do you have to say?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Donald Murray
Thanks to Tony's engaging presentation, I was inspired to look at some of Donald Murray's published work. That guy wrote a lot about a lot of stuff.
In Write before Writing (College Composition and Communication, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Dec., 1978), pp. 375-381), Murray offers this suggestion for teachers of writing, "We may need, for example, to reconsider our attitude towards those who delay writing. We may, in fact, need to force many of our glib, hair-trigger student writers to slow down, to daydream, to waste time, but not to avoid a reasonable deadline." This sounds to me like brilliant advice. I would bet that most people who end up in graduate English programs are the kind who can write on command - 500 words on any subject or on no subject at all. Maybe all of us "good writers" don't really know how most people feel about writing. And perhaps we "good writers" are too quick to fling a bunch of big words on the page, not paying enough attention to content and artistry.
In the previously mentioned article, Murray comments that, as a journalist, he looks for the lead, and then the writing takes shape from there. I have experience in magazine and newspaper writing, and I take the same approach. Sometimes it leads me down blind alleys, but it always gets me started.
I am all for further exploration of Murray's Pre-Writing or Pre-Visioning concept. I think an awful lot of bad writing can be blamed on the lack of preparation.
In Write before Writing (College Composition and Communication, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Dec., 1978), pp. 375-381), Murray offers this suggestion for teachers of writing, "We may need, for example, to reconsider our attitude towards those who delay writing. We may, in fact, need to force many of our glib, hair-trigger student writers to slow down, to daydream, to waste time, but not to avoid a reasonable deadline." This sounds to me like brilliant advice. I would bet that most people who end up in graduate English programs are the kind who can write on command - 500 words on any subject or on no subject at all. Maybe all of us "good writers" don't really know how most people feel about writing. And perhaps we "good writers" are too quick to fling a bunch of big words on the page, not paying enough attention to content and artistry.
In the previously mentioned article, Murray comments that, as a journalist, he looks for the lead, and then the writing takes shape from there. I have experience in magazine and newspaper writing, and I take the same approach. Sometimes it leads me down blind alleys, but it always gets me started.
I am all for further exploration of Murray's Pre-Writing or Pre-Visioning concept. I think an awful lot of bad writing can be blamed on the lack of preparation.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Andrea Lunsford
After Nancy's interesting presentation on Andrea Lunsford (thanks, Nancy), I remained intrigued by the idea of collaboration in writing. I'm not much of a collaborator. When faced with group work, my preference has been to split it up, count on everyone to his or her best, then somehow mash it together. Maybe that's not really collaboration - maybe it's job sharing.
I went to a paper by Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede, Why Write... Together: A Research Update (Rhetoric Review, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 71-81) for to learn more about collaborative writing. Their survey of writing in the professions produced some pretty surprising results. For instance, those surveyed said they spend 81% of their writing effort alone, 10% working with one other person, 9% in small or large groups. When working in collaboration, the least-favored strategies were: team plans and writes draft, which is revised by one or more persons who do not consult the writers of the draft; and one person plans and writes draft, which is revised by one or more persons who do not consult the writer of the draft. The most-favored collaboration stragety was team plans and outlines, then each member drafts a part, then team compiles and revises.
Clearly, I am not the only person who is uncomfortable with collaborative writing. I admire Lunsford and Ede's strategy of Talk-Write-Talk-Read-Talk-Write-Talk-Read, etc., and would like to try it out. It seems to me that their process is a true collaboration, and not just a melding of individual work. I imagine that it is not easy to find someone with whom to write in this way. First of all, both would have to have deep interest in the subject (to make all that talking bearable). Additionally, both would need to have high regard for the other's abilities and experiences. Finally, both would have to be able to put ego aside for the sake of the work.
I went to a paper by Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede, Why Write... Together: A Research Update (Rhetoric Review, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 71-81) for to learn more about collaborative writing. Their survey of writing in the professions produced some pretty surprising results. For instance, those surveyed said they spend 81% of their writing effort alone, 10% working with one other person, 9% in small or large groups. When working in collaboration, the least-favored strategies were: team plans and writes draft, which is revised by one or more persons who do not consult the writers of the draft; and one person plans and writes draft, which is revised by one or more persons who do not consult the writer of the draft. The most-favored collaboration stragety was team plans and outlines, then each member drafts a part, then team compiles and revises.
Clearly, I am not the only person who is uncomfortable with collaborative writing. I admire Lunsford and Ede's strategy of Talk-Write-Talk-Read-Talk-Write-Talk-Read, etc., and would like to try it out. It seems to me that their process is a true collaboration, and not just a melding of individual work. I imagine that it is not easy to find someone with whom to write in this way. First of all, both would have to have deep interest in the subject (to make all that talking bearable). Additionally, both would need to have high regard for the other's abilities and experiences. Finally, both would have to be able to put ego aside for the sake of the work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
