What I will do next....

Today in class I typed up 4 pages of my paper. I had them pre-written before I got here so I knew what direction I was going in and would not have to waste time finding quotes etc. I am in the second section of my paper which is "Student Reactions to Teacher Commentary" I just started it and will still have to finish it by adding quotes and incorporating my questionnaire answers I did with my peers into it. Also, as the process goes on I find myself still changing and adding in how many sections I will separate my paper into. I am unsure what I will do and it is still something I have to think about. I plan on working more on my paper this week, considering it is due on Friday!

Exploratory Draft

Commentary that is Effective
Feedback by teachers should encourage students to become better writers. My research has shown students usually only scan the feedback looking for a quick path to a better grade. Responsibility falls on the teacher to modify their comments or feedback to promote an improvement in the writing of their students.
The main research question that guided my research was: What types of commentary enhances revision on students’ papers? This research question led me to different insights on the topic with the sources I found. I have found ways to make my argument stronger with sources that vary from the past to present. The results are all cohesive and my personal surveys from my peers have also strengthened the point I am trying to make. After doing my research I now, want to separate my Inquiry paper into 4 subtopics/categories: what teachers have been doing, what students reactions are to their forms of feedback and what they prefer, the progression in time there has been, if any and I will close with a list of time efficient strategies that other educators have used that are proven to work. My articles all touched on each topic in some way shape or form, I will use them to respond to my main subject heading and show the different insights they give.
What teachers have been doing? Teacher commentary has not been effective for students according to my results. The comments are too vague, contradictory or they are appearance comments. These comments do not help the student understand what they did wrong. In my paper I will use some examples of these types of commentary. I will show that none of these focus on the form, style, or content of the paper but instead give the student the impression that writing is about rules. These types of commentary often leave the reader confused on what is of higher importance to understand for next time and what they should do to improve. Contradictory comments are a popular case among student papers, a teacher will put ‘omit’ in the text but on the margin write ‘expand’. These types of comments often leave the student wondering which they should do for the reader to understand their paper. But most times they wonder which they have to do for the teacher to like and give them a better grade. Students’ reactions to teacher commentary are most times like this, confused or changing the paper just for a better grade.
The area that depicts the students’ responses I think will be the most interesting due to the fact that I surveyed my peers. Their responses all corresponded with the negative aspects of the studies I found. Students believe that their teachers sometimes did not read the paper because their commentary does not coincide with what they were saying. They also believe that teachers write comments that are too vague and leave them left to wonder how to fix the problem. Or often times, what the problem is. The word ‘vague’ will be written in the margin, but what part exactly is too vague? However, articles that I have found from present times have said that students have grown a positive response toward teacher feedback. They say that teacher commentary helps them understand their mistakes and how to improve for next time. Due to the contradicting views I believe that this part will enhance my argument in the way that some educators are improving however, others are still leaving their students to modify the paper for the grade. That will lead me into my progression of change over time with teacher feedback.
I will show here what present studies have concluded about where teacher feedback is now and the students’ opinions on that. Many are positive and so I believe that will be encouragement to the reader to know that it is possible to create better student writers. I would hope this will flow nicely into my conclusion that will depict the methods I have found that increase students’ motivation to write and make sure they pay attention to the comments and use them for a later use. Some methods suggest that the responsibility can be placed in the student hands to enhance revision by editing strategies the students do for themselves. This will be to be instructed by a teacher but the students will be held accountable for learning new ways to revise their papers. I have found articles that promote time efficient ways of responding that are better than just commenting. They provide a lot of work from the student to learn from their mistakes or they show ways to comment that are effective.

Revising my Annotated Bibliography

Since my bibliography was used in class Monday, I used my peer critiques from that class period to modify it. I added in more sub topics in my general categories and went through each article to analyze what grade level they were done in. I also made it a point to shorten my Sommers' summary because most people said it was a bit lengthy.

My plan for revision after peer editing today will be to focus on organizing my sources differently, since that is what both of my peer reviewers said I could/should do. I am still unsure of how I will go about that, since they all touch on the same sub-topics. I also plan on omitting one of my sources and replacing it with others because of the fact that it dealt with ESL students and it may be a stretch of my original topic. Other than that, I need to work on my form of my citations and indent when appropriate. All of my other commentary was very positive and encouraged me to continue searching for more topics and conducting my interview and surveys.

Annotated Bibliography

Shuman, Baird R. "What about Revision?" The English Journal 64.9 (1975): 3 pgs. 31 Oct 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8274%28197512%2964%3A9%3C41%3AWAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

Shuman analyzed different forms of teacher and peer commenting to see which are beneficial. He came to the conclusion that peer editing is a good approach and showed a 3 step process that one of his educators that he interviewed used. Also, determined that teachers need to pay attention to the whole paper when commenting rather than bits and pieces to model to students how to revise effectively. I will use the 3 step process approach in my paper as a way for educators to see that there are other ways to enhance revision that do not need to come from them. This will fall in my last section of my paper as some food for thought for my readers.

"Responding to Student Writing" by Nancy Sommers (Article 1)

*Since there was no articles in the book that summarized what my inquiry project is about I looked for my own. Also, I would just like to start off by saying thank you to Prof. O'Rourke for recommending Nancy Sommers to me because I found a really good article written by her that is EXACTLY what I am doing for my inquiry project.*

The article was called "Responding to Student Writing" and I found it off JSTOR. Sommers was interested in what comments teachers put on students papers and what the students feel about them. She had said that the main reason teachers comment on students' papers is to reinforce the idea of the reader to them. Teachers play the reader role and make it apparent to the students. Also she goes on to say that there are two types of comments: "Comments create the motive for doing something different in the next draft; thoughtful comments create the motive for revising" (Sommers 149). To figure out what most teachers use she conducted a study with 35 teachers and students, and the teachers all "commented on the same set of three student essays"(Sommers 149). She then analyzed the types of responses given to the students and noticed the commonalities among them and how the students react to them.

The first affect she found that comments have on the students was that "teachers comments can take the students' attention away from their own purposes in writing a particular text and focus that attention on the teachers' purpose in commenting" (Sommers 149). This type of reaction occurs when teachers comment on usage and diction (Sommers 150). These comments leave the students unsure of what the teacher wanted them to change or do better. Most times this results from "contradictory messages"(Sommers 150) given by the teacher. This happens to me all the time where the teacher says to shorten a sentence within the paragraph but then on the margin says to expand the paragraph. In-text comments and marginalized ones often confuse the student on what the teacher wants them to do. "These different signals given to students, to edit and develop, to condense and elaborate, represent also the failure of teachers' comments to direct genuine revision of the text as a whole" (151). This leaves the student unsure of what is important to change with the way the comment is worded.

Most times teacher comments are on parts of the paper and not the paper as a whole. This leaves students to only edit the certain words or phrases mentioned and not anything else. "Misunderstanding of he revision process as a rewording activity is reinforced by their teachers comments" (151). Students then focus "on what the teachers commanded them to do than on what they are trying to say" (Sommers 151). Another issue that occurs most times is that teachers misread the students paper and comment on things that are not relevant. in the study she found that "teaches commanded students to reduce and condense what was written, when in fact what the text really needed at this stage was to be expanded in conception and scope" (Sommers 152). Her conclusion to this was one that was mentioned before about how students only revise what the teacher said to change. A phrase she used to describe this was a "balancing act" (Sommers 152) which I think summarizes it perfectly!

Sommers found her next commonality to be that "most teachers comments are not text-specific and could be interchanged, rubber-stamped, from text to text" (Sommers 152). This is when teachers comments are too vague and could be applied to any paper. These make no sense to the student and they have no idea of how to go about changing them. Her suggestion to fix this problem would be to apply tips on HOW to change things not just letting them know that their is something wrong. This is the one suggestion or comment that is lacked on student papers. Teachers never "offered any strategies for carrying out these commands" (Sommers 153). These are needed because telling a student "'to be more specific' or 'to elaborate', does not show our students what questions the reader has about the meaning of the text, or what breaks in logic exist, that could be resolved if the writer supplied specific information; nor is the student shown how to achieve the desired specificity" (Sommers 153). Teachers offer the rules of the things that need to be changed not the strategies to do so and this makes the student think then that writing is all about rules.

The one way to put an end to all of this Sommers says, is to have a different set of guidelines and commentary for drafts of papers and the finished products. The feedback "needs to be suited for the draft we are reading" (Sommers 155). Students may be confused on which set of commentary you are giving them. So it is important to let them know which one is being used. However to defend teachers, they said they were never taught how to respond to students papers in school. That is true, in all of my English courses we are not taught how to access students papers. We look at theorists articles and summarize them or write papers on them but we never do exercises commenting on "students" work. So teachers have the tendency to look for errors in student writing and not go past that which produces a bad revision process of the student. Sommers suggests that teachers should "offer students revision tasks of a different order of complexity and sophistication from the ones that they themselves identify, by forcing students back into the chaos, back to the point where they are shaping and restructuring their meaning" (Sommers 159).

Possible Interview Questions?!

For the students:
-How do you feel when teachers write vague comments on your paper?
-What comments do you normally take in consideration for the next paper you write for them?
-Which methods of feedback do you find the most helpful to you and why? (rubrics, one-on-one conference, comments)


For Professors/Teachers:
- What method of feedback do you use with your students papers and why?
- Have you ever had students come to you with questions due tonot understanding your feedback?
-Does the method of feedback change for the various courses you are teaching? If so, why?


****Doing interviews with people is something I am not good at beacause most of the time I do not know what to ask. So any help on this would be greatly appreciated!!!****

Developing New Knowledge: "Factness" Excercise with Inquiry Topic

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?

I was thinking about talking to my peers in my other composition courses and finding out their opinions on teacher comments they receive. Also, to tackle the subject of what teachers should be putting on papers I could see what professors have been putting on them. I can analyze the feedback they give students and get their reasoning on why they chose that method of response to their students’ work. Then, I could take that and compare it to what students feel about those methods.

What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question?

I could read articles written by composition theorists. Also, I could look for articles or blogs written by classroom teachers to see what they have been using in their classrooms and e-mailing them to find out how the students respond to it. I have already found some articles on JSTOR that seem to correspond well with my topic and they are written by scholars so I know they are valid.

What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)

I could observe in classes when students get papers back and see their reactions when they are reading it over. I could conduct surveys with my peers to get their opinions on what type of feedback is beneficial to them and what methods they dislike. Also if time allowed and it was possible, I would like to see what comments they take in consideration when editing their papers and which ones they disregard. I do not know if this answers the question but I am unsure right now how I would go about this.

Revisiting the Inquiry Contract (revised)

When the general public considers the subject I’m working with, what are the issues, questions or concerns that they think are important to discuss? Do these questions and concerns differ from those of the scholarly discourse community?

The general public I would be aiming at is parents because they are going to want what is best for their child’s understanding. They may ask their child’s teachers what methods of feedback they use and how students respond to it. The scholarly discourse community will already be familiar with the topic and may produce arguments on better feedback methods.

In discussions of my subject, what are some of the status quo assumptions that appear to go unsaid but nonetheless seem almost universally believed?

The most common form of response to students writing is comments on the students’ paper. Most educators believe that is the best way to give feedback to the students. This may be true but it depends on what type of comments they write.

In texts that people produce about my subject, what kinds of outcomes or results do they expect the texts to have with readers? Do writers about my subject usually expect a reader simply to consider their ideas, to believe in them strongly, to take some specific action? What?

It is hard for me to answer this question because I have not read over the articles I have found yet. I would think the scholarly writers want readers to take their argument in consideration and practice their modes of thinking. They persuade the reader with their experiment outcomes what methods should be used to get the best response out of students. Educators are the main audience for those articles and it may be beneficial to them to think about it and test them out for themselves.

Initial Thoughts on my Inquiry Project (revised)

Part I: Exploration1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your Inquiry Project.

My hope is to work on something that focuses around students attitudes towards teacher comments on their papers.

2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?

I have had certain reactions to my teachers’ comments on my paper. At times I am left confused on what I did wrong to receive the grade I got. Other times, I thought I fulfilled the assignment but got comments on areas that were not part of the initial assignment.

3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?

I feel that most students can relate to the topic. I also am aware that teachers look for different things when grading and it can be hard to please them all. I think that teachers should provide the students with what they are going to be looking for in the final project before the students start. This way they know what is expected of them and will understand their feedback better.

4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?

The knowledge I already have about this topic is personal experience and observations that I have had throughout my school years. My main questions about the topic are:
-What are students’ reactions to teachers’ feedback?
-What methods of feedback do students respond the best to?
- What types of comments should teachers be putting on their students’ papers?
I am most curious about how teacher comments change the perception the student has on their work. Also, what they would want to see instead. I am really interested in researching that because I plan to be an English school teacher and would want to be helpful to my students in any way I could. I would like to see what they prefer with feedback.

5. How might composition theorists and researchers approach or study this topic? Does this approach differ from those of other related disciplines (such as communication studies)?

For education studies: I believe that education theorists will hold the most knowledge about this topic. They could have studies that they performed with students and teachers. Also, they could use information gathered by their years of teaching and provide their scholarly argument on what teachers should be doing with feedback and learn from their mistakes.

For communication studies: They may be more concerned with how feedback that is not understood by the student may change the teacher-student relationship.

For research studies: They can correlate the results of different forms of feedback to see which promote better student attitudes and which they disregard.

6. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?

I could perform a survey with my peers. I could produce a questionnaire for my English professors to see what form of feedback they use and why they do it.

Part II: Focusing Write an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.

What type of feedback methods do students appreciate and respond to the most?

"Professing Multiculturalism"

This article discussed the ways in which multiculturalism could be used in teaching composition. I saw this as a way in which a writer may be heard, to connect with Royster's article. I believe this because it will give the teachers a better understanding of their students' writing and it will give people in general a better perception of works from writers that are from various backgrounds. The rhetoric everywhere would be better understood if one knows where the writer was coming from and how things work in the area they come from. In the article it shows how an "educated American" reacts to someone that comments on her work in a bad way and how another writer from a different area gets told his work is bad. It was just because the writer from another area, Dreiser, took on a different style and approach to writing then what one is normally used to in America so they automatically deemed it as a bad piece of work. Students have this issue in their classroom as well.

Students face the same issues at times that most writers face when they were brought up in a different area and present their work to an American. Lu decides that they need a model of what is considered real and compare the students work to that. Have the students perform exercises with "real' works and dissect what makes it a good appear so they can utilize it in their own. Lu termed the approach, "error analysis" they would imitate what they found. Provided to the students was an example of a paper with easy identifiable errors and asks the students how they would fix it. "I look for styles which are also more conducive to my attempt to help the writer to negotiate a new position in relation to the colliding voices active in the scenes of writing" (494). It shows the use of style and the writers own perception of what standard written English is supposed to look like. Also, by sharing the responses it gives the students a variety of ways to modify one error.

"When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own"

The article by Jacqueline Jones Royster was pretty confusing to me. I know her main emphasis was cross-boundary discourse and why it has failed and what can be done to make it possible. Subjectivity was her main tactic of making it possible, "subjectivity as defining value pays attention dynamically to context, ways of knowing, language abilities, and experience, and by doing so it has a consequent potential to deepen, broaden and enrich our interpretive views in dynamic ways as well" (611). One way to do that is by voicing our opinions and stories and being heard. "The call for action in cross-boundary exchange is to refine theory and practice so that they include voicing as a phenomenon that is constructed and expressed visually and orally, and as a phenomenon that has import also being a thing heard, perceived, and reconstructed" (612).

The three scenes used in the article depict different forms of 'subject'. They work together to show how we need to change our communication style to be better understood in more areas then our own community. Then, Royster goes on to explain strategies of doing so. One of the scenes shows the importance of voice. Being heard but not understood but it is sill better to speak. Too often we rely on others to do the talking for us, normally people in authoritative roles and/or experts. We can speak at any time and it may be perceived but how do we listen to others? How do we show others that we are engaged in what they are saying? Most times when I am in a conversation I can tell by the person's body language whether they care about what I am saying or not. It is one thing to speak and another to be heard, we have to find a way to do both.

Bizzell tells us "What We Need to Know about Writing...

I really liked this article because it merged two methods into one to create a valid and better understanding of the writing process. She did not choose one or the other and then bad talk them or say one was better, like some other articles we've read. Bizzelll chose to integrate the inner-directed mode of thinking and outer-directed to come to a conclusion on composition studies. Inner directed people are concerned with the thought process while writing and having thoughts before being in a social setting. The outer directed people thinking that thoughts come from social settings, people can influence them or you can take a stand. It was made clear that everyone comes to a consensus that it takes language to develop thoughts. This corresponds with the idea that each discourse community has their own language, ways of doing things and rules to follow. This is what makes them a group, the common characteristics they share, there are many discourse communities and people can belong to more than one. They just need to know what makes them apart of one or how to be part of one.

The inner directed theorists have a 4 stage model of developing language. 1. Individual, 2. Experience, 3. Society and the last one being the Writing situation. With an isomorphic model as Bizzell puts it, we can connect these stages with the outer directed thoughts and get the importance of what we need to know about writing. Inner directed theorists think that organizing ones thought can be taught, with their stage models. "Once students are capable of cognitively sophisticated thinking and writing, they are ready to tackle the problems of a particular writing situation" (390). They think that altering info to fir the thoughts of its reader is not bad because it does not change the point of the paper, it is just worded differently.

In contrast, the outer directed theorists think that social context help shape and condition thoughts. This sis something that cannot be taught it should be an innate habit. They think that no one can teach the rules of a discourse community because one needs to be part of it in order to truly understand it. The students are already placed in a discourse community of the school and the one they were born in and when writing a paper they may be unaware they are entering another one.

The article continues to go on and use Flower and Hayes model of the cognitive processes to show what they mean. Flower and Hayes are inner direct theorists. The fact that they use Protocol analysis as their tool to search is a problem with in itself because it is not accurate because writing is something that is not scientific. Flower and Hayes model lacks credibility because it "does not tell us how to proceed through the composing process, but only that in proceeding, there are certain sub processes, we must include if we want to compose successfully" (394). They answer the 'why' but not 'how' part of the process. To make student writers and see how they go about doing something they need to be gaining it through social context and we need to put them in situations where they are tested. This is how the outer detected models come into play. "What's missing here is the connection to social context afforded by recognition of the dialectical relationship between Thought and language. We can have thoughts for which we have no words, I think, but learning language, though it doesn't exactly teach us to thinking, teaches us what thoughts matter" (395) I agree with this quote because it is true and I know that through experience. Vygotsky's notion of he mind and how it works also suggest that we need the inner and outer models to understand it. The translating and planning aspect of Flower and Hayes model should not be separated, as they have it but connected and influenced by society. When readers are reading a piece of work they connect to it on a social level, they look at the experiences to relate to the character etc. The students cannot fake to be part of the discourse community as Bartholomae states it, they need to understand the discourse community before writing for them.

Flower and Hayes spoke about goals and they stem from knowledge, but the bigger question is however does the knowledge come from?...Answer: experience, society, others. The problem then is that poor writer cannot create goals because they lack knowledge on the discourse community they are writing for. Poor writers need to be taught the conventions of discourse communities. "if language using isn't rule governed in this sense, however, it still may be regular-that is, we may be able to group situations likely to share a number of language-using features. But to do this is to describe the conventions of discourse communities" (405).

To do this we need a "hidden curriculum" as Bizzell put it. We need to open their eyes to other communities without denying their own they already have. Once students are not apart of the community they are automatically perceived as wrong. For example, "The result for students who don't share the school's preferred world views is either failure or deracination" (407). Teachers need to focus on the real world and teach students the conventions of it.

Synthesis Of Bartholomae and Flower & Hayes

I synthesised Flower and Hayes into Bartholomae's ideas in my Bartholomae response. I found that they all seem to agree that writing is a process and what matters is not the final text but how the author got to that final product. It was stated in both articles that "If writing is a process, it is also a product,; and it is a product, and not the plan for writing that locates a writer on the page, that locates him in text and a style and the codes or conventions that make both of them readable" (631). This sentence to me, summed up the main points of the article. It incorporates the audience and the writers intentions. It also discusses the points made by Flower and Hayes with writing as a cognitive process and the goals the writer creates. The writer creates goals independently and privately, when the paper is finished and others read it is when it becomes public.

However, I feel that the writers disagree on where the invention aspect comes in during the process. Bartholomae feels that Flower and Hayes take invention out of the active writing process and that is a problem. His argument is due to that we see the product in text from the author not from his mind. We have no ideas as readers what the author's original ideas were and the process he went through to transform them from thoughts to text. Flower and Hayes Cognitive process demonstrates that the plans of the paper happen before the actually composing of it, I agree with that. One always has an idea or thought in mind of what they want to say but how to say it is what involves research and thinking. They argue on where the invention stage lies, for Flower and Hayes it is in the Task enviroment, for Batholomae it is in the active writing process.

Inventing the University Response

This article was written by David Bartholomae and to me, it was difficult to understand. The main bulk of it focused on student writers and how their work can be influenced if they act as part of the discourse community of their audience. It was stated that it is hard for students to take on the authoritative role in the papers and that is due to the fact that they may not feel like an expert on the issue they are talking about. However, Bartholomae says that they do not have to, they just have to act as they do. And in doing so, it will provide them the opportunity to explore this new discourse community. If they turn away all the thoughts of the outside communities and focus on the discourse community they are writing for, their papers will be so much better. First and foremost they will be aimed towards the people interested in the topic and it will be written int heir language. Bartholomae said a good place to start for this would be to create a commonplace.

A commonplace is "a statement that carries with it its own necessary elaboration" (pg. 626). This will give the audience something be be curious about and the writer will then have something to explain. "If writing is a process, it is also a product,; and it is a product, and not the plan for writing that locates a writer on the page, that locates him in text and a style and the codes or conventions that make both of them readable" (631). This sentence to me, summed up the main points of the article. It incorporates the audience and the writers intentions. It also discusses the points made by Flower and Hayes with writing as a cognitive process and the goals the writer creates. The writer creates goals independently and privately, when the paper is finished and others read it is when it becomes public.

One of the issues presented in the article was the problem of not feeling apart of the discourse community one is writing for. This happens a lot in school because of the assignments given. Teachers assign things that require students to be interested what those above them do but not actually be apart of it. So writing for the teacher requires them to be placed in an academic community and most times they just imitate what they see and know and don't really discover anything. By acting as a part of this discourse community they are taking in certain elements and this allows them to take o n the authoritative role that they need to make their paper memorable.

What we really think about when writing...

I want to say first and foremost that I really enjoyed the article by Linda Flower and John R. Hayes. I found it very interesting and very true. The article tackled the subject of what writers think about when composing and the decisions they make. They go on to first criticize the Pre-writing, Writing and writing process because it occurs in a linear form and it lacks the importance of time, decisions and other aspects that go on in the writer's head. "They model the growth of the written product, not the inner process of the person" (pg. 275). That is why a cognitive process is better according to them because it takes that and more into consideration. The cognitive process studies the mental processes that the writer is going through while composing the paper. The protocol analysis was the term they used to describe how it is better to test the writer while composing not after the fact. The 3 components of the cognitive process are Planning, Translating and Reviewing. The major elements are the task environment, long term memory and the writing processes.

Under the task environment are two sub elements: the rhetorical problem and the written text. In this time period the writer needs to decides what they are going to write about and the goals they are going to set for themselves. Also, once having the problem determined the writer needs to decide what to say about it. They usually have this thought in their mind and the hardest task is for them to get it on paper. The planning process the writer creates ideas, organizing them and sets the goals he wants to achieve in the paper. The goals have a chain reaction because they change thought out the writing process and that altars the paper. Under the translating state of mind the writer needs to decide how to put his thoughts into words that his readers will understand. The problem with this is they may be editing while translating and that could put a stop to the flow of ideas. While revising the writer can just read over his paper or make changes and add things.

The cognitive process is one that never ends. It is a continuous function that goes on during the writing process. There is no order to it. "It is much more common for writers to simply embed individual processes as needed-to call upon them as sub-routines to help carry out the task at hand" (pg. 284). That is very true and I can say that from experience. I do not use a set series of steps to compose a paper I take things as they come. The goals guide the paper and the thought process that will accompany them.

Addressed and Invoked Audience

The article from Bitch magazine really help me see the difference between an addressed and invoked audience. I see more what the article was saying by Ede and Lunsford about how they had issues with both forms and wanted to try and combine them. I think that is exactly what needs to be done because they work in correspondence with each other.

The addressed audience are those that buy the piece of rhetoric. The readers that share the same feelings as the authors. With Bitch magazine it was independent woman who had opinions on things and were able to express their feelings on certain issues. I think this was something that was not mentioned in class and maybe should have been. The writers and intial readers of the magazine are ones that have something to say about a certain topic. The addressed audience reveals the readers and who they are, what qualities or characteristics they have.

An invoked audience is the imaginary readers of the text. However, with Bitch magazine the authors provide feelings that the readers should share. With their use of words, adjectives and certain phrases that could relate to anyone and really hit some readers. They may be straightforward in their approach but it works for them to get their idea across.

I think that both of the audiences work together because whether you are an addressed or invoked audience the text is needed to decide. The text can be aimed at either one depending on the way it is looked at. The addressed may enjoy it, but it draws the attention of the invoked ones as well. It may create dissonance and with Bitch magazine I think that may be one of their intentions. The title of their magazine alone gives the reader a sense on what it will consist of.

Addressed or Invoked?

Audience, it is such a central part of reading and writing but it is also something that is hard to define. The article, "Audience Addressed/ Audience Invoked: The role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy" by Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford discussed audience and how it is hard to define for a reader or writer. The main two components was an addressed audience and an invoked audience.

An addressed audience is one that the reader or writer are trying to get their message out to. They are the ones whose opinion matters, the real people reading or listening to the piece. With an addressed audience the importance of the writer is not essential. A theory mentioned int he article was by Mitchell and Taylor and their central theme was the audience, what the writer did was irrelevant. That is the key difference between an addressed audience and an invoked one.

An invoked audience is created by the writer, he fictionalizes his audience and creates a role for them to play in his piece. This is harder than Ong portrayed it to be in the previous article. The reason for this lies in the fact that sometimes the reader may not catch on or play the role created for them, due to the pressure placed on the writer by the reader. "to acknowledge that readers own experiences, expectations and beliefs do play a central role in their reading of a text, and that the writer who does not consider the needs and interests of his audience risks loosing that audience" (pg. 88). There is a lot that the writer needs to take into consideration to gain the reader's attention.

All in all defining an audience is difficult to do because there are so many variations of what the term can mean. It "refers not just to the intended, actual or eventual readers of a discourse, but to all those whose image, ideas, or actions influence a writer during the process of composition" (pg. 92). An audience then depends on the writer and the reader because that is what pieces of texts are used for, to be read by someone.

Audience..

In the article, "The Writer's Audience is Always a Fiction" by Walter J. Ong he depicts the differences between a writer's audience and a speaker's audience. The major difference is that the speaker's audience can give the speaker immediate feedback and he generally knows the persons that will be present. A writer's concept of an audience is a bit more complicated because they have to create one in their minds because they do not know who will be reading their piece of work. " He has to write a book that real persons will buy and read" (pg. 58) and that can be a challenging task.

The job of the author is to create an imaginary audience in his mind and give them a role to play in their story. So that the audience can fictionalize themselves in the novel, as the writer did when he was creating it. An example of how an author may do that was expressed by showing Hemmingway's tactics. He commands the audience attention and sets the scene as if the reader has seen and/or experienced the same thing the character in the story is. Hemmingway creates a bond between the reader and the main character, camaraderie , he boost his reader self esteem and interest in the novel by doing this. The reader in a way becomes actively involved in the story.

The tactic of having the reader be a participant in the story is something that has been used by authors for years. One phrase that everyone knows is "Once upon a time" which boosts readers imagination and takes them out of reality. Also, some authors create various characters in their novels that could relate to a variety of people. this engages the reader because they now have someone they can relate to. This tactic was especially helpful for me when I was in the primary grades learning how to deal with peer pressure, new experiences that come with maturity and other issues of that form.

The one form of audience that most would think are easy to create are the ones that are the most challenging. To create an audience for a diary or a journal is a complicating task due to the fact that the writer is supposed to act like they are not fully there because of the fact that they are trying to tell 'someone else' about their thoughts and issues going on in their life. That is when a "mask" may be useful. This writing technique is used for the author to be completely honest by masking other emotions they may be feeling. For writing a letter it is hard to depict how to write the greeting because you do not know the mood your reader will be in that day, so the writer needs to create one for the reader.

Post-Process response

The article “Post-Process Pedagogy: A Philosophical Exercise” by Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch was about exactly what the title states. I had trouble fully understanding it so my summary may not be fully accurate but I will state what I did get from it. Breuch went into a discussion about how writing cannot be taught, what way writing can be preformed and what processes can enhance the writing process and then connects this all to teaching styles that educators should use. Her main emphasis throughout the article is on a philosopher, Kent; his ideas are the ones that Breuch uses to agree and elaborate on or disagree with.

The first item analyzed was Post Process Resistance and this helps with explaining the idea that writing is not something that can be taught. Kent was a believer of this idea and based it off of the fact that it rejects the process of writing that most were taught in primary grades. However, he does state that writing rules can be taught such as grammar but grammar does not equal to the act of writing. It is simply an aide for it. “Consequently, he does not suggest that teaching writing is impossible; he suggests that teaching writing as a system is impossible” (pg. 101). His idea to teach writing is then to change the teacher/student relationship to a reciprocal partnership that I based off communication and dialogue. This would be a form of cooperative learning’ as Brufee explains in his article.

Another element that was discussed in the article was Post- Process rejection of Mastery. Most theorists claim that the writing process is something that can be mastered because it is considered a body of knowledge and most can retain and use that. Kent and Breuch disagree with this statement and thinks that the process of writing is more than a body of knowledge, it’s content. This turned into a discussion on whether writing is a how-centered lesson or a what-centered lesson. Breuch relies on the fact that that writing as a process is a how-centered activity, “because of its emphasis on the activities involved in process to writing” (pg. 106). But all agree by the end of this section that writing is not something that can be mastered, due to its degree of change.

The main bulk of the essay remains on explaining how writing is a skill that cannot be mastered due to its many different forms and meanings. The way to explain this was by declaring an audience and having the audience understand the point that is trying to be made in a paper. It is a process of connecting language and words to the real world, to have the general public appreciate it. That is a hard task to accomplish at times but it is possible. A concept that kept reappearing throughout the article and in this section and more would be dialogue based on communication and this helps to explain the fact that writing is an activity that requires “language in use, communication interaction with others-rather then content to be mastered” (pg. 113).

The next element to explain how writing is an activity is to explain how it is an interpretive action. The point presented above about communication is an element of an interpretive action, “understanding interpretation as universal helps illuminate the third process assumption, that writing is situated” (pg. 115). Situated means just that one is able to act in certain situations unconsciously without a set of guidelines to follow. This concludes the ideas of writing being an activity, its public, interpretive and situated. It’s random and changes in various situations, that goes on to prove why it is something that cannot be mastered. Due to the spontaneity and the fact that it will never be organized or structured makes it hard to be something that can be retained. It is not impossible to try and teach but it would be useless because it is ever-changing. The teachers’ role in this is to be a mentor. Teaching has the same elements that writing does and it is a very challenging activity. The remainder of the article depicted how writing centers are a good tool for enhancing the activity of writing. “The union of post-process theory and writing center practice could potentially demonstrate how theory and practice could live in harmony” (pg. 121). They would work together to make sure all elements are taken care of.

Unskilled/Student Writers

The articles by Perl and Sommers discuss student writers and the process of writing they go through and one key element in their studies was how revision plays a part. They both conducted studies to analyze unskilled writers and the methods they use and why they use those methods. However, Sommers took it a step further by comparing those results with a study done with experienced writers to see how their process of revision differs with student writers and why. The article by Sandra Perl was titled, “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers” while reading this essay it felt like I was reading a study conducted on me. Every action described that the students do, are the exact same things I do while composing a paper. What scared me is that I could relate to each thing stated I there because those are the concerns I have while composing a paper.

In the article they used a student, Tony as the example. Tony’s process of writing was concerned on what the teacher would think. As stated in both articles, students write for the teacher reader. They put in all of the writing rules that they know their teacher would be proud of. However, sometimes those rules are applied the wrong way. Also a good point that Perl brought up was the less engaged students got in their topic the more repetitive they became within their paper. Tony also shares with me the fact that I read my paper thinking my reader knows what the ideas are in my head. That is something that most students perceive as well, in the article it was coined the term, “selective perception” (pg. 36).

Sommer's article, “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers” discussed what was stated above and the “linear” process of writing and the flaws one could have when thinking about writing this way. Her article was more focused on the act of revising and when that occurs in the writing stages; also, how one defines revision. With those two elements, she can come to a conclusion on why students’ end products are the way they are. A very good point that was made in the article that corresponds to other readings we have read in class is the difference between communication and writing; “The spoken word cannot be revised” (pg. 45). Many times that is a difference that is hard to distinguish. Also, her thought of revising was something that occurs throughout the writing process, not just at the end like most students think.

One of her main points is that many students perceive revision differently, as in what they do when they “revise”. Some revise by following the rules they learned in class to modify their paper. (For example, not starting a sentence with and.) Others see it as fixing grammar and spelling or going back and omitting sentences that are not needed. That differed from the experienced writers perception of revision because to them it is a process to form new ideas and expand on what they have. Many student writers do not think open minded about their work and assume that what they have is good enough and no changes are necessary. This may be due to the fact that the student writers follow the linear structure of writing and this puts a hold on the correct way to revise. “Writing cannot develop “like a line” because each addition or deletion is a reordering of the whole” (pg. 51).

Writing is a Process...

Cross-Talk in Comp Theory by Victor Villanueva, discusses the way writing has evolved over time. With the invention of new technology and endless texts on writing, it has progressed into many different forms. It was mentioned in the acknowledgments section that he thanks graduate students for helping him rethink and recreate the Cross Talk book. They are the ones that are the most reliable critics due to the fact that they can express what is working for them, what is not and what new aides are available now that they refer to, such as technology. Throughout the book Victor uses metaphors to compare writing to everyday experiences like following a cooking recipe and modifying it for the amount you need. Writing is the same, there are things that work and don't work to make the product a valuable one, and it is a process that one goes through (like the recipe) to get there. He claims the book was designed to challenge ones views on writing they have now and open their minds to new ideas and forms it can take. He in no ways tries to persuade the reader to think a certain way but rather to offer what "They say", and have the reader come to a conclusion themselves.

One of the articles presented in the book, is by Donald M. Murray and it is entitled, "Teach Writing as A Process, Not a Product". That is to say that most times professors are concerned with the final draft and what the student should have produced. However, what is more important is how the students got to the final product, what their writing process was. Teachers are accustomed to leaving general comments on the student's paper, but those are not useful at all, because they "are not teaching a product, we are teaching a process" (pg. 3). The process has three major phases that the students are to go through and explore: prewriting, writing and rewriting. Prewriting is composing and idea, choosing an audience, research etc. basically all the things that should be considered before compiling a rough draft. Writing is the actual act of creating a draft. And rewriting is revising the paper to make it suitable to hand in. Teachers role in this is to be a guide on side. They need to listen to the student and let them create their own ideas and form they want to choose. Most times, teachers like to express ideas etc and that takes away the student being involved in the prewriting stage and that is the most important one for it is the base of what the final product turns out to be.

There are 10 initial stages to the writing process the student needs to go through according to Murray. In a sum-up they are: the student looking at his own writing, creating a subject, using his own words to describe it, doing all the prewriting needed, modifying the form to fit the papers needs, taking as much time as needed, exploring writing process and creating any alternatives to it they need. The teacher then is to respond to the student,"not for what they have done, but for what they may do; not for what they have produced, but for what they may produce" (pg. 6).

Another article in the book by Janet Emig called "Writing as a Mode of Learning" depicts how writing is a unique process unlike any other forms of communication it is compared to. It also is a key concept when combined with other learning strategies. Janet argues that writing is different then language. writing transforms into different words and text then talking does. It is both unique and created differently every time. There is more to writing than just communication. another one of her key points is that there is a connection between writing and learning. It connects all phases of our life and allows us to expand in our creativity. Without written documents, reading would be impossible and it is with text and practice that ones learns how to compose a good paper and understand a concept.

Questions regading the Timeline

The timeline revealed the fact that education has adapted over time due to the changes in society. As new people immigrated and new ideas developed, the curriculum and those enrolled in school changed as well. It was modified to fit the neeeds of the people at that place and time. It also was desgined to have those involved in it, prosper. Education was used to prepare people for the workforce and better the nation and it's economy. Those allowed to be educated was only the wealthy. However over time: minorites, females and others that held talent were allowed in the schools as well. The struggle of education existed due to the tension between the competing models of the liberal culture and efficency culture. Over the years the society would change from one to the other and as that happened the school system changed with that as well. Education would vary between being student centered and subject based. Standardized testing also came into effect and that is still an issue today with how culturally biased the tests may be.

The english curriculum was one that was used in different ways over the years as well. It was at first to be about literature. Then it evolved into self expressive writing, because between the wars the attitude of the nation changed. It became about individuals and the potentials they had. After WWII writing became a cognitive process. As one can see, due to the problems or situations the nation was facing the education adapted to them as well. Communication courses began to hold some importance as well and the attitudes of the teachers changed postwar.

To conclude, whenever the cultures present in the nation changed, the education system was adapted to fit the needs of everyone that lived in the United States. At times the liberal culture advanced and schools were modified to educate students to be successful. When the efficency model was advacing the school system focused on making leaders and those that can take a management role in their expertise. As new people immigrated and situations the society faced came along, the educational system modified itself to please the people and the nation.

1880-1900 Summary

The article by James Berlin discussed the way education has changed over time due to the issues that were occuring in society. During the 1880's-1900's many changes had occured. Education was based off of what the democratic society thought the school should teach. English composition was one of the areas that was changing all the time. At first it was to be a reflection on larger conflicts taking place in society, the english curriculum lied between the classroom and society. Secondary schools and colleges were only for the elite to gain power in society. They would study areas such as medicine, law and minsitry. It was said that they needed to attend college to gain an education that would make them capable of holding their place in society.

The Morrill Federal Land Grant of 1862, changed the persons entering the school, it allowed for minorites to enroll and any other persons of talent to gain an education. Also, this changed the curriculum of the colleges to prepare students for management oppurtunities in certain areas. They were to provide students to be able to take a leadership role in their area of expertise. The Committe of Ten was also an organization that changed the way English should be studied in High school to better prepare those for college. There was a tension that was evolving between the liberal culture and efficency culture. A disagreement between Yale and Harvard elitists on the way education should be conducted, it was something that was apparent in the years to follow.

Peer Tutoring? What is it all about?

After reading They Say/I say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing I found many of the occurrences stated tend to be ones that I have come across in my academic career. In other words, many of the problems mentioned that students come across; I have once before as well. Graff and Birkenstein offer any helpful ideas and answers to students that need the aide, but how can these devices be used in a setting other then the classroom? Some may say that in a classroom is the only place that these tactics can work, however I do not think that is the case. While in a tutoring environment, the strategies provided in the book can be helpful to refer to for the fact that they are straightforward and provide examples of why they are important. The moves provided can be talked about or written. The tutee and tutor can converse about the different strategies while discussing a certain assignment that was given. Together, they can come up with the move that corresponds with their particular stance. The book can be used as an aide for the tutor to help the tutee and for the tutee to look at while creating their papers. While the templates provided create a starting stone for the tutee, they do not always have to be used.
Many times the templates are not even needed because the student already knows what is asked of them and how they want to answer it. The tutee may not need the template because they have already designed their paper and just have certain modifications they need to make that do not require a template. Tutoring is a conversation just like writing is, so at times the creativity is there in dialog but needs to come out into text. A tutoring session may require the tutor and the tutee to simply talk about the issue at hand for the tutee to gain ideas on how to word what they are thinking. Many ideas for their paper may come from talking about it and that will offer them other opinions the have that they may want to add into their paper. It is hard to distinguish what specific moves matter most in a tutoring conference because it depends on what the conference is about. It depends on what the students needs are, after those are found out the tutor can help get those needs met. The general ones that I would say is having a thesis, choosing a side and counter arguing the opposition and then working from there.

They Say, I say response

In the introduction to “They Say/I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provide templates designed to help students organize their thoughts and create a strong paper. Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein argue that the types of writing templates they offer are building blocks to creating a better paper. As the authors themselves put it, “templates do more then organize students’ ideas; they help bring those ideas into existence.” (pg. XIV). Although some people believe that templates result in students having all their papers look and sound the same, Graff and Birkenstein insist that templates are,” not to stifle critical thinking but to be direct with students about the key rhetorical moves that comprise it” (pg. XV). In sum, then, their view is that the templates shown in the book are stepping stones to get students started, not formats they have to follow forever.
I agree. In my view, the types of templates that the authors recommend are very helpful. For instance, when writing a position paper, it is hard for me to make sure I add the counter argument in. In addition, it is hard for me to organize my paper with adding the counterargument in and then defending my position at the same time. Some might object of course on the grounds that every student is capable of wording their own thought correctly. I agree with that but I would argue that not every student knows how to organize those thoughts in a pattern that makes sense to other readers. Overall, then, I believe that using templates is beneficial to the student because it is a guide for them to follow—an important point to make given is that the templates can be altered any way the student would like to benefit their paper.