Response to Todd

Todd, Isn't this idea a polar opposite of collaborative learning? Sure, individualism is a cherished American ideal, but we all need to learn to work and learn together. I do agree that individuals will need to be taught and encouraged in various ways. Even so, in a collaborative learning environment, each will have something to contribute.

The Dyadic Triangle vs. the Triadic Triangle

In response to Melanie’s blog, the message in the dyadic triangle depicts the idea the the writer has written language as a representation of codes, rather than something that must be interpreted according to the writer’s meaning of the discourse. Ann Berthoff speaks extensively about the empiricist’s idea that language is a code. On page 331, she quotes I.A. Richards as saying of the empiricist: “He thinks of it as a code and has not yet learned that it is an organ-the supreme organ of the mind’s self-ordering growth.” She also states the following:
“Empiricists do not generally recognize that all method, including scientific method, entails interpretation; they do not generally recognize that there are no raw data; there are no self-sufficient facts; there is no context-free evaluation.”
Berthoff concludes that the dyadic triangle leaves out meaning (interpretation), purpose and intention, those elements which comprise of the writer’s use of thought and “imagination” which she equates with abstraction. I understood this to mean that writing is much more complex than the “signifier” and the “signified” such as in semiotics. (Ask Ray about this. It’s his specialty)

Expressionistic Rhetoric and American Values

Upon reading Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class, I thought of Cognitive Rhetoric as a possible response to global competition based on the role assigned to it as that “engaging in scientific research designed to establish a body of knowledge that would rationalize all features of production.” It also reminds me of testing through the New Child Left Behind. Efficiency, profitability and manageability were named as skills which resulted from the method. I found it interesting then, those qualities of Expressionistic Rhetoric are revered by capitalism as follows: private initiative, individualism, confidence to take risks, and bucks against authority. These qualities seem most in line with American ideals.

Response to Writing as a Mode of Learning by Janet Emig

I found this chapter to be interesting. I especially liked Michael Polanyi’s statement form Personal Knowledge.
into every act of knowing there enters a passionate contribution of the person knowing what is being known, . . . this coefficient is no mere imperfection but a vital component of his knowledge (12).
This is cool – all of this time I’ve been trying to remain objective in my writing – as I’ve been encouraged. However, this makes sense; otherwise, you may as well enter info into a computer. The different experiences that each one of us encounters contributes to the end result of all types of creative work such as writing, art, music, etc. It’s what makes us human.

Response to "Audience Addressed/

Response to “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked” by Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford

While reading the section entitled “Audience Addressed”, I was reminded of my daughter’s complaints during the years that she worked at Borders. She reported the store catered to the mentality of the majority or average reader and that this resulted in a narrow selection of written discourse for marginalized groups of readers. She also reported of irate customers having complained about written discourse that supported social and moral judgments in opposition to their own. Obviously, publishers are driven by the audience or “what sells” in order to make a profit. As the authors point out, writing adjusted to meet expectations of the audience without regard for the motives of the writer can lack truthfulness and “tends to undervalue the responsibility a writer has to a subject” (Ede, Lunsford, 82). However, Ong’s who emphasizes the creative role the writer plays in written discourse fails to take into account “the constraints place on the writer, in certain situations, by the audience (88). Having spent years in an academic environment, all of us can identify with this. I found the authors’ diagram on page 89, labeled figure 2, helps to sort out the complexity of the concept of “audience.”

Not Enough Freedom in Writing

I agree with Donald M. Murray in “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product” that students should be allowed more freedom when writing papers (4). My son, a high school senior, is normally dictated how many pages his paper should be, in addition to the target audience, and the topic he chooses must be chosen from within a set of parameters. In the case of a Literature class, where a particular book is being studied or a history class in which students are learning about a specific event and location, I suppose these guidelines are necessary. However, there should be more opportunities to write within a broader spectrum. I have watched my son lose his enthusiasm for writing over the years as the parameters within which he has been given for his writing assignments have shrunken. If I teacher stands back and allows his or her students to learn the process of writing by choosing their own topics, language style, and methods of reaching their audience, most students will feel a sense of ownership and take pride in their work. However, should the final product be lacking, aren’t the results the same? What criteria should be used in grading the work at the end of the course or marking period, as Murray suggested, to prevent these students from becoming discouraged, which could in turn lead to a loss of excitement about writing?