And the fight goes on and on and on...

If I had to determine whose side I fell on, I would have to say that the majority of my beliefs as a teacher lean toward David Bartholomae. However, I do think Elbow has some very good theories as well; so I believe both. Some may say that is a cop out, but to be an effective teacher of writing, you must be open to many theories and take from each what will be best for the students.

I agree with Bartholomae when he says that students need to establish power over text first and then add the voice at the end of the writing process. They do need to understand the argument they are presenting in their writing before they can persuade an audience; the synthesis process is pertinent. Once the argument is complete, then it is better understood by all. I also like that he sees the teacher as a manager, in control and in charge. Students need to have that kind of structure in the classroom, especially in writing. The instructor is ultimately the one who is responsible for the class. But I do not like that he sees students within the cultural context. Here is where I agree with Elbow. Students are individuals and need to be comfortable with the writing before they can produce anything worth while. I tend to lean more toward the academic writing than the personal writing because having the foundation in academic writing will allow students to become successful no matter what they do post graduation. The skills are stressed instead of the content.

Bartholomae seems to be teaching students to adapt to the situation, whether it be an academic , social, or personal discourse community. That sounds somewhat like Bizzell, but where she stresses instructor adaptability, Bartholomae emphasizes student adaptability. I must agree that writing should be academic and critical rather than personal. I guess the question is what do students need in order to be successful? Maybe start with personal and expressive writing so students can become comfortable with writing, like Elbow suggests, then move to academic and critical writing which will lead to critical thinking which in turn is needed in any professional setting. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

Great presentation Emily - KUDOS!

To Collaborate, or Not To Collaborate... That is the question.

I must say I am not a fan of collaboration, but I am going to contradict myself here (since contradiction seems to be a common theme so far). Different types of collaboration are important because collaboration allows for growth. However, collaboration with writing...well, I don't know. Authorship always is a driving force behind collaboration. I understand that Lunsford likes the idea to share her ideas and create with others; but I think that kind of writing all of the time causes the author to lose his or her identity.

I do see a similarity to Murray, though, after reading Nancy's blog. She must sit on the couch to think about the problem or idea she is working out as an individual author. The internal dialogue, hmmm? That kind of reflection is necessary for growth as well. I guess there is just a time and a place for collaboration and individuality. Each is just as important as the other and of course everything in moderation.

What Lunsford did for education cannot be measured. If it were not for her drive to create a better process for women and minorities, in what kind of state would our education be? As a minority and female, I am grateful for people like Lunsford.

Vision Here, Vision There, Vision Everywhere!

Tony did a very good job in presenting Donald Murray's theory of writing. As a student and a teacher I have encountered many types of writing processes, and I must say Mr. Murray's process makes sense. The idea of the pre-vision, vision, and re-vision is a process that most students unconsciously complete. The idea of writing from an internal dialogue is classic. We all carry on a conversation with ourselves at one point or another. That allows us to think, listen and finally create what we want to say. Unlike Ong, this is not a spontaneous process. Our internal language/dialogue allows us to foster our ideas so they will make sense to our audience.

An author, compositionist, writer must follow some sort of process in order to make sense of his or her ideas. Looking at the topic, situation, idea, genre, etc. from different perspectives only gives the author the advantage. Product is always the outcome of any process, whether it be writing, speaking, or pottery. To say that one process is the right or correct process would be arrogant. Contradictions will always exist to processes because the process is constantly changing and evolving.

And for you Tony ... MODISTA!

Ong and Orality

It is amazing how we forget our earliest form of communication - the spoken language. Eric did a really nice job reminding us of that basic form of communication through his presentation about Walter Ong. Literacy can changewhen it is spoken; the only time it is permanent is when it is printed in text. Ong gives us the revelation that literacy and orality are cyclical. Yet, I don't think that is anything new.

When we write we have the opportunity to reflect and revise. Ong states that with the oral tradition, one can be spontaneous and spontenaity is a good thing. I don't think, however, the secondary orality and the interfaces of the word are changing the way we communicate. The spoken word allows for people to interact. The written and printed word both allow people to record, and the electronic word allows for people to instantly interact and record. I think Ong is correct when he states that the Western culture is moving and shifting. Our multiforms of communication are allowing us to rethink how we communicate with one another.

Our Creative Inspiration, Peter Elbow

Peter, Peter, Peter Elbow. Tell me, sir, what do you know? Peter Elbow seems to know much about composition. Listening to his interview on youtube offered a great insight to the development of a writer. His first experience with writing was very negative, as is probably the case with many other young writers in school. Elbow argues that writing is not formulaic, it is a creative process. Again, there is the word process.

Many teachers believe that writing is the five paragraph essay with each sentence containing at least five sentences, and few grammatical errors; in other words perfection. Teachers have the ultimate power to influence a young mind and if that power is not recognized the result is Peter Elbow and his writing theory. The formal writing process (brainstorm, draft, revise, edit, publish) does not work for all writers; however, for the most basic writers this may be helpful. Much like Kinneavy, Elbow seems to contradict himself as well. He states there is now right way to develop a composition - one can free write, or outline, or brainstorm whatever their little hearts desire. But if he is the reason we have formalized state testing, then he does believe in organization and specific planning on a students behalf - responsibility and accountability.

How does Elbow creep into the composition classroom today and how does he reflect Kinneavy? Well, I believe that his theory of composition is not based on audience but on self. He refers to writing as a creative process, and that's fine and dandy; but what about using that process when you have to write a formal paper. Formal/Formulaic - coincidence? There are two definite types of writing - creative and expository. A student must be able to achieve both forms of writing. Elbow allows the creative expressionist to advance and prosper, but the organized writer needs a formula to follow to advance and prosper. I think this is where Elbow and Kinneavy can compliment each other. The approach to writing by the compositionist is a personal choice, however, the final outcome will be the same. Again process vs. product. I don't think it is one or the other and that is where the conflict is occurring. You must find a process to finish the product, whether it is formal or creative.

Elbow's personal experience with writing allows him to connect with those who have had the same experience, but again everyone in unique in style and we can all learn from each other. So dear Peter Elbow, as Tony would say "Won't you be my neighbor?"

Kinneavy and His Contradictions

Composition and rhetoric. What do we really do with it? It is interesting to see how others, who are published and acclaimed, view composition. I have never really formally studied composition or the theory of (unless you count professional development days). However, I found that what Klayton presented about Kinneavy made me realize what I have been taught as a student and as a teacher concerning composition isn't anything new.

Having the privilege to listen to Tom Romano, I definitely could make the connections to Kinneavy and his theory of writing. People write and create for a variety of audiences and hope to make some impact or have some influence on the audience they are trying to reach. Kinneavy separates writing into genres hoping to reach a wider audience which makes sense. Not only is his theory of writing trying to reach an audience, but it is trying to influence writers as well. What he presents is multi-genre writing and writing across the curriculum. This is a very important skill because we, as individuals, need to know how to communicate in any given situation. Kinneavy breaks the genres down into specific categories, and each genre has a particular purpose. However, those purposes and genres overlap, thus, creating cross-curricular writing.

Trying to wrap my brain around what Klayton presented was difficult until I started to look at the genres and purposes as a teacher. I cannot force my students to write a particular way just like I cannot make them learn a particular way. Some are auditory learners, visual learners and kinesthetic learners. Kinneavy seems to recognize this and his theory individualizes writing for the writer.

We write for a purpose; we write for an audience. We share our writing with others and we sometimes keep it private. Even though Kinneavy may be full of contradictions (according to Klayton), his theory of writing makes sense because it is so full of contradictions. Writers have their own style of composition and writing that may be contradictory, but isn't that what makes writing unique? I don't think it is the product, but it is the process; and that seems contradictory to Kinneavy, yet fits right in with his theory as well.

Biotechnology and Composition, for real?

Since when did composition become so sci-fi? This article, "The not-so-distant future: Composition studies in the culture of biotechnology", by Michelle Sidler seemed so far fetched; however, the further I read, the more I began to think about the future of education and its possible paths. Technology is definitely impacting the classroom, from computers to cell phones, to ipods, etc. We as teachers have had to adapt to the changes technology has brought. We have seen computers already become smaller (i.e. the iPhone, blackberries, Internet accesses on a cell phone), but the idea that biology will no longer be sacred is a scary idea.

Teachers prove to still be an informational source to students in the classroom. I don't think teachers can be replaced 100% by technology, but I do agree that we will need to adapt to the changing needs our society and culture will create. As composition teachers we will need to learn a new language to prepare our students for a productive, lucrative and successful future if we go in the direction Sidler predicts. Will literature we teach change, the style of writing transform, and the language we speak mutate? Probably, according to Sidler. In section four: a brief introduction to the genome, the construction of a genome is compared to the chapters of a book; that is a very interesting comparison. Moving from one-dimensional to multi-dimensional writing is what science advancement is causing our culture to do. How are we going to adapt in a composition classroom? Do we then start to transform our teaching to fit the society? Today we are no longer changing students into what we want them to be, but we are changing society to fit what they want it to be: faster, more advanced, and indulging. Why should we continue to teach "The Bard" when it won't be needed in 20 years?

I know that sounds pretty petty, but I believe what Sidler is really saying is we need to adapt, as we have been since the dawn of time, to changes in our world in order to survive. We need to look at teaching students skills such as interpreting, comprehending, synthesizing, and researching texts in order for them to have the ability to decode, dissect, and learn new ideas. Someday writing with pen, paper, and pencil will become archaic and these tools will be seen in a museum; but until then, we need to use them to help create and mold the skills future generations will use when biotechnology and composition become a reality.