• As we wrapped up multiple discussions about revision and feedback, this reading took quite a turn. The opening paragraphs discussing trauma and PTSD were unexpected, as I didn’t know what an article about expressive writing would entail. It also struck a nerve for me since I had just finished watching the documentary about the Menendez brothers.
• As someone who is very passionate about the prison system and the rehabilitation of inmates, I couldn’t help but think about how beneficial this could be in all prisons. Since prisoners were included in the studies, it demonstrates that this approach could help them. So much needs to change within that system, and I see this as a realistic solution that can be implemented without the need for large funding.
• I found it interesting that writing about different topics yielded varied benefits. Coming into this, I didn’t think the specific topics would matter. However, it makes perfect sense that different subjects resonate differently.
• “Not all traumatic events are equally toxic.” (pg.4) This made me think of my boyfriend, who often feels that ‘trauma’ is an overused term in our overly sensitive culture. There’s such a strong desire to be understanding that it overshadows the reality that not all trauma is on the same level.
• “Even though a large number of participants report crying or being deeply upset by the experience, the overwhelming majority report that the writing experience was valuable and meaningful in their lives.” (pg.7) This entire article made me reflect on my personal relationship, or rather my distance, from expressive writing. Whenever I’m recommended journaling, it feels like a chore, and I automatically lose interest. However, I have a public blog where I share my life and experiences. It’s quite contradictory, to say the least.
• “He also found that longer intervals between writing sessions produced larger overall effect sizes, and that males benefited more from writing than did females. (pg.8) Though emotional intelligence has progressed and society is generally more accepting, the reality remains that society doesn’t encourage men to be emotional. Women are raised in a culture of community, sharing, and emotional expression, while men often feel pressured to suppress their feelings. It makes perfect sense why the men benefited more than the women in the study.
• “We recommend that writing researchers and practitioners provide sufficiently open instructions to allow people to deal with whatever important topics they want to write about. As described in greater detail below, the more that the topic or writing assignment is constrained, the less successful it usually is.” (pg.12) I thought it was a bit awkward or uncomfortable to ask someone to write about specific traumatic events. While I understand the necessity for these studies, it still feels strange. For example, asking someone, ‘Can you write about a time you considered suicide?’ is tough. I agree with the sentiment that, generally, people should be allowed to write about what they want.
• “Being able to see things in a positive light, then, might be a critical component to successful adjustment.” (pg.12) Well, of course! Thinking of the glass as half full would naturally lead to better adjustment.
• “However, as evidenced from the mixed condition, if people aren’t able to integrate their perceived benefits into their trauma story in their own way, writing may be ineffective.” (pg.13) One’s ability to see the good that can come from the bad is a sign of maturity and healing. Being able to view different perspectives on a situation is a crucial life skill, regardless of the circumstances.
• “Similarly, in an unpublished project by Lori Stone (2002), students were asked to write about their thoughts and feelings about the September 11 attacks.” (pg.14) Whenever I think about 9/11, I’m reminded of the disconnection many of my peers feel regarding it. Those who are my age or close to it have no recollection of the event, creating a significant distance—even for me. Though it wasn’t long ago, in the minds of many young people, it might as well have happened in the early 1900s.
• “In both cases, we found that people talked with one another at very high rates in the first 2-3 weeks. By the 4th week, however, talking rates were extremely low.” (pg.17) When a recent event occurs, it’s fresh in your mind and feels like a fragile, open wound. As time goes on, you start to compartmentalize in an attempt to move forward.
• “Christensen et al. (1996) preselected students on hostility and found that those high in hostility benefited more from writing than those low in hostility.” (pg.20) I think it’s important to define what ‘hostile’ means. That term and ideology are often weaponized against people who look like me, so I would have liked it to be more clearly defined. What one person finds hostile, another may not, so what exactly constitutes hostility?
• “By extension, writing about an emotional experience in an organized way is healthier than in a chaotic way.” (pg.31) Isn’t the big picture about getting it out and expressing themselves? While it’s helpful for readers if it’s more organized, the priority should be that they express themselves and feel better.
• “Unfortunately, we are not yet at the point of being able to precisely define what is meant by coherent, understandable, or meaningful when it comes to writing about emotional upheavals (cf., Graybeal, Seagal, & Pennebaker, 2002). One person’s meaning may be another’s rumination.” (pg.31)I appreciated that this was acknowledged, as everyone brings a different perspective to the table, making it important to provide space for the nuances. We should apply the same approach to the word ‘hostile.’

This week, I had a conversation with Maya about our workload and our experiences in our classes. I genuinely enjoy the readings for this course, as they focus on writing and how to improve students’ work. As a teacher, I find a natural interest in these topics and feel that I can actually implement the strategies discussed. Here are my thoughts on this week’s enjoyable readings.

Bean

• “”The writing teacher’s ministry is not just to the words but to the person who wrote the words.” (Zinsser 48) I value this quotation because all of us as teachers, late at night, having read whole stacks of student essays, sometimes forget the human being who wrote the words that currently frustrate us.” (pg.317) This brings up such an important point. Personally, I always consider the student when grading, and I feel a lot of teachers do as well. However, the reality is that this can bode well or poorly for students. “Good” students receive more leniency, while “bad” students have no wiggle room.
• “The best kind of commentary enhances the writer’s feeling of dignity.” (pg.317) I believe this is a great mindset that all educators should adopt. Writing is a crucial skill, and it’s important that we provide students with the confidence they need to succeed in the world.
• “When a teacher wrote, “You haven’t really thought this through,” students reacted this way…When a teacher wrote, “Try harder!” students reacted this way…” (pg.319) These are such mean and presumptuous comments. We have no idea how students are processing information, so the idea of trying harder and them not thinking things through is really problematic for me. (Though I understand how, sometimes, as teachers, one may feel this way about their students’ work.)
• “Zull’s point is that fear, anxiety, or anger blocks meaningful learning, which is associated with pleasure.” (pg.320) This is such an important consideration for teachers. Understanding the mental stress that can be present, we must work toward alleviating it, as those feelings can stay with students throughout their writing careers.
• “To promote meaningful learning, Zull argues, teachers should build on student successes, evoking feelings of hope and confidence rather than failure-the same point made by Spandel and Stiggins.” (pg.320) I agree, but it leaves me with the question: How do we address their areas for improvement or mistakes? Is “mistakes” even the right term, or should we use “learning opportunities”? This has left me questioning the best approach for execution.
• “The students in Smith’s study overwhelmingly preferred the mitigated version that mixed positive and negative elements.” (pg. 320) So, is it safe to say that the compliment sandwich is the way to go?
• “To improve our techniques for commenting on our students’ papers, then, we need to remember our purpose, which is not to point out everything wrong with the paper but to facilitate improvement.” (pg.321) Again, I think this is a great framework, but it’s easier said than done.
• “At this stage, (where our role is judge) we uphold the standards of our profession, giving high marks only to those essays that meet the criteria we have set. It is possible, of course, to do both simultaneously.” (pg. 321) We need to be judges and hold students to the standards we’ve established, while also being compassionate and allowing for the gray areas that reflect their individuality and feelings. I think it can be challenging to find that balance in practice.
• “The second strategy, which is my favorite method, is to allow rewrites after I return the “finished” papers.” (pg.321) I agree; students should always be given the option to rewrite. I want to see what they can do on their own and act only as a guiding light—like when you go through a haunted house and the workers are there but don’t speak, simply ensuring you stay on the right path. I don’t want to scare them or overwhelm them with feedback; I just want to guide them in the right direction. We can discuss things on the other side.
• “Because not all students will choose to rewrite, this method is less time-consuming for me, and the quality of the writing I initially receive is higher. By allowing rewrites, I can gear all my comments toward revision yet also feel comfortable applying rigorous grading standards, because I know that students can rewrite.” (pg.321) I completely agree. Not everyone will take advantage of a rewrite, which allows me to spend more time on those who do. I can also stand firm on my expectations and standards. For those who choose not to rewrite, I hope they pay attention during our lessons so they can earn a desirable grade the first time and avoid feeling pressured into a rewrite. (Of course, we want students to revise, but I’m being realistic.)
• “You think of limiting your comments to the two or three things that the writer should work on for the next draft rather than commenting copiously on everything. You think of reading for ideas rather than for errors. My recommendation is to limit your comments to only two or three of the questions and to proceed to lower-order concerns only after a draft is reasonably successful at the higher levels.” (pg.322) Two truths can exist. I believe students should be corrected on grammar, punctuation, and similar issues, but it’s equally important to address the content of their work. I also agree that it’s important to provide students with a manageable amount of prompting so they can genuinely improve their work. Two or three items is reasonable, but it really depends on the level and the specific students you’re teaching.
• “If the draft doesn’t follow the assignment, there is no purpose in commenting further. I generally return such a draft unmarked and ungraded.” (pg.323) Unless this is submitted as their final work, I agree. It’s pointless to nitpick every detail if I’m going to prompt them to redo the entire piece.
• “To use the language of Flower (1979), such a draft is “writer-based” rather than “reader-based”; that is, the draft follows the order of the writer’s discovery process rather than a revised order that meets the reader’s needs.” (pg.323) This is a great concept, but it’s difficult to achieve when students don’t like school and may not be interested in the topic. It’s challenging for students to be “writer-based” when there’s no connection beyond obligation. In their minds, they’re only writing for the reader, a.k.a. the teacher.
• “The thesis is the new infonnation presented in the paper. The old information is the question that the thesis addresses.” (pg.328) I love this framework!
• “This philosophy follows Haswell’s practice of “minimal marking” (1983), in which teachers don’t mark student errors but require them to find and correct their own errors. The teacher tells a student that his or her paper is marred by sentence errors and that the student’s grade will be either reduced or unrecorded until most of the errors are found and corrected.” (pg.330) This is great, but what if they’re unable to find any, let alone all of the corrections? Grammar can be challenging, and many students genuinely miss common, small mistakes. (Don’t get me started on spelling!)
• “The beauty of this policy, from a teacher’s perspective, is that abandoning the role of proofreader and line editor saves substantial marking time.” (pg. 330) I always hate the idea of cutting corners because it’s time-consuming. We’re teachers, and if we need to spend more time helping students learn from their mistakes, then so be it. I know it’s easier said than done, but come on.
• “More importantly, it trains students to develop new editing habits for eliminating their own, careless errors.” (pg.330) It definitely has the potential to help students build positive habits, but there should be a balance. I think we should give them the opportunity to identify their mistakes, then swoop in to show and explain the corrections and what went wrong.
• “In addition, every teacher has pet peeves about style, so you might as well make yours known to students and note them on drafts when they start to annoy you.” (pg.332) This makes me think of my time teaching sixth grade. The students were pretty awful writers, except for their content. They were often clueless about formatting and very basic standards in writing. This led me to teach a lesson on the basics, such as indenting, font choice, font size, etc.
• “The strategy I recommend is to follow a three-step template: (1) strengths, (2) summary of a limited number of problems, and (3) recommendations for revision.” (pg.334) These are solid steps for providing feedback.

Elbow

• “Evaluation requires going beyond a first response that may be nothing but a kind of ranking (“I like it” or “This is better than that”), and instead looking carefully enough at the performance or person to make distinctions between parts or features or criteria.” (pg.1) I like that it says the person and not just the performance. Taking the student into account is just as important and relevant to the work.
• “In short, the reliability in holistic scoring is not a measure of how texts are valued by real readers in natural settings, but only of how they are valued in artificial settings with imposed agreements.” (pg.2) Though I’m typically in favor of holistic scoring, I agree it doesn’t necessarily translate to the real world.
• “We can sometimes get agreement among readers from some subset, a particular community that has developed a strong set of common values, perhaps one English department or one writing program. But what is the value of such a rare agreement?” (pg.3) How widespread should agreement be, and what constitutes sufficient agreement? Is a department enough? A district? The state, since they create and grade standardized testing? Agreement is important for standardization and establishing clear boundaries, but who should set that standard?
• “Grades and holistic scores are nothing but points on a continuum from “yea” to “boo”–with no information or clues about the criteria behind these noises.” (pg.3) I agree; grading can be one-dimensional when it lacks context.
• “But oddly enough, many “A” students also end up doubting their true ability and feeling like frauds because they have sold out on their own judgment and simply given teachers whatever yields an A.” (pg.3) This just highlighted my imposter syndrome. It’s so true—being an “A” student can mean absolutely nothing in terms of confidence in one’s abilities.
• “It is plain that IQ scoring does not represent a commitment to looking carefully at peoples’ intelligence; when we do that, we see different and frequently uncorrelated kinds or dimensions of intelligence (Gardner).” (pg.4) I agree; IQ scores should be abolished.
• At this point, I’m left with the question of how all this can be applied in educational settings when you’re required to submit grades and numbers. This includes test scores, which can impact funding for the school.
• “Some students, in the absence of that crude gold star or black mark, may not try hard enough (though how hard is “enough”–and is it really our job to stimulate motivation artificially with grades–and is grading the best source of motivation?).” (pg.5) Again, the idea of trying harder is very problematic. We don’t know what students have on their plates, so instead of taking things at face value, it’s important that we communicate and address the root issues, rather than just treating the symptoms.
• “I taught for nine years at Evergreen State College, which uses only written evaluations.” (pg.5) Even though written evaluations are effective, they’re not realistic in overpopulated schools with underpaid and overworked teachers.
• I like his evaluation methods of utilizing portfolios and grids, similar to rubrics. I think grids clearly outline expectations, while portfolios help showcase the full scope of a student, rather than just grades and numbers.
• I appreciate that he addressed the limitations of evaluation.
• “I realize now what I’ve been unconsciously doing for a number of years: creating “evaluation-free zones.” (pg.10) It’s so important to provide students with the space to exist and be without the anxiety of being evaluated. Doing this will also help build their confidence, as they learn to trust their instincts.
• “Naturally, people get them mixed up: when they like something, they assume it’s good; when they hate it, they assume it’s bad.” (pg.13) It’s important to always be receptive and provide space for nuances. Just because you like something doesn’t mean it’s all good, and just because you dislike it doesn’t mean it’s all bad.

I really enjoyed these articles, as they made me reflect on how I revise and how I’d like to approach this topic in my teaching. Here are my thoughts.

Sommers

• I found the overlap between speaker and writer quite interesting. To me, these are completely different spheres that can intersect but don’t have to. It never occurred to me how intertwined the two can be, as I tend to view them as completely separate entities.
• I find Britton’s theory that writing is a linear experience to be fundamentally flawed. It definitely isn’t linear; rather, it’s a continuous cycle that, some might argue, never truly ends.
• Barthes’s acknowledgment that speech is ‘irreversible’ (which is debatable) highlights the distinct differences between speech and writing. This brings me back to my thoughts about why the overlap between the two is being discussed.
• “By staging revision after enunciation, the linear models reduce provision in writing, as in speech, to no more than an afterthought.” (pg. 379). Herein lies the problem: as the article continues, it highlights one of the issues in teaching. Revision isn’t encouraged enough and is often taught as an afterthought in classrooms.
• “When we must revise, when the very idea is subject to recursive shaping by language, then speech becomes inadequate.” (pg. 379). ‘Inadequate’ is a strong word, but it suggests that speech may not be sufficient for conveying certain messages. I find it fascinating that revision serves as the dividing line between the two. Can we truly define speech? I believe it can be revised. Even when writing for speech, mistakes can occur, requiring backtracking. So what exactly constitutes speech?
• SAT Verbal scores, what even is that?
• “The predominant concern in these definitions is vocabulary.” (pg. 381). I can certainly understand why this is a primary concern for college students, especially freshmen. There’s a narrative that, in order to be seen as informed, one must be equipped with jargon. Students want to sound polished and appeal to their audience, the professor, so they are naturally drawn to vocabulary.
• “The aim of revision, according to the students’ own description, is therefore to clean up speech; their logic suggests that the redundancy of speech is unnecessary in writing because writing, unlike speech, can be reread.” (pg. 381). While one must exercise discretion, repetition—within reason—is essential to writing, as it serves as an anchor and helps convey the message. This highlights another aspect that needs to be taught more effectively in classrooms. With sound judgment, students should not fear repeating an idea if it enhances the story.
• “By rewording their sentences to avoid lexical repetition, the students solve the immediate problem but blind themselves to issues on a textual level; although they are using different words, they are sometimes merely restating the same idea.” (pg. 382). This is an issue I often see as a teacher, and I’m guilty of it at times myself—though I do recognize and edit it during revision.
• “If students feel inspired, if the writing comes easily, and if they don’t get stuck on individual words or phrases, then they say that they cannot see any reason to revise. Because students do not view revision as an activity in which they modify and develop perspectives and ideas, they feel that if they know what they want to say, there is little reason for making revisions.” (pg. 382). If I’m honest, I’m guilty of this. It’s not that I think I’m the most amazing or prolific writer, but, as the quote mentions, when I feel confident, I don’t feel compelled to engage in formal revision. I tend to just edit as I go, rather than writing multiple drafts.
• “This results, in part, from the fact that students have been taught another version of the linear model of composing, which emphasizes using a thesis statement as a controlling device in their introductory paragraphs.” (pg. 382). I vividly remember being taught this as well. Having personally experienced it, I believe this approach can stifle a student’s ability to explore other directions. Sometimes it feels like once you solidify your thesis, there’s no wiggle room, and you just have to see it through.
• I agree that students generally aren’t taught the skills to troubleshoot when writing. Whether it’s revising or composing, many students hit a wall and don’t know how to address the issue. While peer assistance and teacher guidance can help in the moment, they don’t equip students with the tools they need for the long run.
• “They have abstracted the standards of a reader, and this reader seems to be partially a reflection of themselves, functioning as a critical and productive collaborator—a collaborator who has yet to love their work.” (pg. 385). When writing, I often don’t consider the reader. Audience awareness is incredibly important, so this is definitely something I need to work on. In the past, I would write for an audience of one, but as I’ve grown, I’ve become more secure in my voice. I tend to write what I feel and hope that others appreciate it.
• “It is a sense of writing as discovery—a repeated process of beginning over again, starting anew—that the students failed to have.” (pg. 387). Writing as discovery is an important framework that all teachers should implement in their classrooms. If students were taught that writing and revision are about discovery and are ongoing processes, perhaps they wouldn’t feel so hesitant and lost when engaging in them.

Witte

• “Revising is a slow, arduous, laborious, and complex task in which one must reflect over time on the piece of writing and the changes that might be needed.” (pg. 34). This notion that revision is so grueling often repels students. We can acknowledge the work that revision requires without giving it such a negative connotation, as this won’t motivate students to engage with it any more than they do now.
• I loved the brief excerpt on the National Writing Project (NWP). I had no idea it was so expansive and included Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• “Feedback is given by E-A participants on the writing posted based on the type of feedback requested from the participant: Bless, Address, or Press.” (pg. 36). It’s always frustrating when people provide unsolicited advice or comment on things you didn’t want feedback on. Sometimes, you seek specific guidance, so I love that they offer these targeted options.
• “In the spring of 2009, an initial draft of the pre- and post-survey was distributed to 15 area K-12 classroom teachers not in the study population.” (pg. 39). It’s great that they sought outside feedback to ensure they were conducting the best surveys possible.
• “Survey results clearly indicate that many E-A study participants did not understand the differences between revision and editing. While some participants likened revision to fixing a car and editing to painting it, a significant number believed that revision and editing were the same process or did not acknowledge revision at all, defaulting to a common definition of proofreading as editing.” (pg. 40) “Ultimately, if teachers are confused about what revision is and what purpose it serves, so too will students.” (pg. 47) It’s concerning that teachers are unclear on this topic. We are teaching the next generation how to write, so our understanding of revision and editing is critical to their future writing endeavors. As the quote suggests, students will be at a deficit if we, as educators, lack clarity.”
• I was happy to see that more time was dedicated to revision after the institute.
• Studies like this are crucial for educators’ development because teachers need opportunities for reflection to assess whether they are teaching effectively and using the most current and relevant information. Hopefully, those who read this study will also take the time to evaluate how—and if—they are properly teaching revision.
• I liked that they encouraged digitalization in the classroom. It’s important, especially since it’s the future. Technology isn’t going anywhere, so we should embrace it and find ways to use it for our benefit and that of the students.
• “Teachers find that many factors affect students’ attitudes about revision, but one specific influencing factor is their teachers’ attitudes toward the revision process. Teachers must show respect for revision; they must practice in their own writing what they advocate as important to their students and vice versa.” (pg. 49). This principle applies to anything—if teachers aren’t enthusiastic and respectful about a subject, students won’t be either.

Since I received such good feedback on my notes from last week, I think I’m going to keep these bullet points. Let’s dive in!

High & Low Stakes Writing – Elbow

• “If students take only short-answer tests or machine-graded exams, they will often appear to have learned what we are teaching when in fact they have not.” (pg. 5) I couldn’t agree more! Personally, I believe standardized testing should be abolished, and this is exactly why. One test doesn’t—and shouldn’t—define a student. Many students do and don’t test well, but that doesn’t reflect what they’ve learned over the course of a class. This also leads to teachers teaching to the test, creating an illusion of understanding. Let’s remove these exams and look at the student as a whole.
• “That is, I acknowledge that some students can understand something well and yet be hindered from explaining it in writing because of their fear of writing or lack of skill. In fact, it sometimes happens that we understand something well that we can’t even explain in speech—much less in writing.” (pg. 5) As a special education teacher, this quote made me reflect on all of my students and my knowledge of that population. When working with children with special needs, it’s easy to overlook how many skills need to be taught that come more naturally to “typical” students. This line reminded me of the skills of summarizing and retelling—both of which are incredibly challenging and often not explicitly taught. Regardless of the population, conveying something you understand is difficult, as stated in the text. Adding the challenge of writing only makes it more complex.
• Outside of enjoying this reading from an educator’s perspective, I appreciated how straightforward the language was. As I’ve discussed with some of my peers, sometimes we encounter texts filled with so much jargon that the message becomes blurry. Reading something more accessible is refreshing.
• “We mustn’t forget here a basic pedagogical principle: we are not obliged to teach everything we require.” (pg. 6) While this may be true, most teachers find themselves needing to backtrack to cover what’s required of students. Many students struggle to produce what’s asked of them, especially considering we’re in a literacy crisis. This situation forces teachers to rework their lesson plans and adjust their pacing, as countless students are constantly in a state of catch-up.
• “They have discovered how often teachers’ comments are not clear, how often comments are misunderstood by students even when they are clear, and how often comments cannot be trusted… And truth be told, we are often writing in a discouraged or downright grumpy mood… Even when we write clear, accurate, valid, and helpful comments, our students often read them through a distorting lens of resistance or discouragement—or downright denial.” (pg. 8) If everyone is moody and has skewed perceptions, how can we get to the truth and be truly helpful? It feels like we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. There’s no right way to critique students’ work, and even if there were, we can’t predict how receptive students will be.
• “That is, we are most likely to cause learning and least likely to do harm if the message of our response is, in effect, ‘Please do more of this thing you are already doing here.’” (pg. 10) It’s not what you say; it’s how you say it. Providing students with positivity when grading their writing is crucial. I understand how detrimental it can be when students only hear what they’re doing wrong, so I try to be very aware of this. When grading, I always focus on finding and highlighting the strengths in their work. I tend to use the “criticism sandwich” approach (positive, negative, positive) when providing feedback.
• “When the writing doesn’t much matter to the final grade, we can afford to withhold our response or criticism. (pg.10) Personally, I think it’s important to provide intentional corrections on both high-stakes and low-stakes assignments. While high-stakes work deserves more detailed criticism, I can’t turn a blind eye to low-stakes tasks. For example, all assignments receive feedback on grammar, spelling, and organization, but high-stakes assignments get more in-depth feedback regarding content. I believe that addressing these aspects, regardless of the stakes, will help build positive writing habits that won’t need to be addressed later when grading high-stakes assignments.
• “Is this comment worth it?” (pg. 10) This is a good question to ask ourselves when providing feedback. Not everything we think needs to be said, so we should reflect on whether the comment is actually beneficial and purposeful. Sometimes we have to weigh whether it’s more important to be correct or to contribute something meaningful.
• “In contrast, low-stakes minimal responding requires the least time and effort from us, requires the least expertise from us, takes the least time away from our teaching of the subject matter, and is least likely to turn teachers and students into adversaries.” (pg. 10) This idea of taking the easy way out shouldn’t be our default. Sure, minimal feedback takes less time and effort, but student learning should be the priority. We’re building important foundational skills, so even if it takes more time to give feedback, we should do it for the greater good of the students.

Writing as a Process – Murray

• “Year after year, the student shudders under a barrage of criticism, much of it brilliant, some of it stupid, and all of it irrelevant. No matter how careful our criticisms, they do not help the student since, when we teach composition, we are not teaching a product; we are teaching a process.” (pg. 3) The idea that criticism is stupid and irrelevant, regardless of how good it is, just isn’t true, in my opinion. Feedback can be incredibly helpful when done right, especially when the student is receptive.
• “It is the process of exploration of what we know and what we feel about what we know through language. It is the process of using language to learn about our world, to evaluate what we learn about our world, and to communicate what we learn about our world.” (pg. 4) I think this is a great framework that educators should adopt. Focusing on exploration and having students be active participants in their learning is crucial to their understanding and engagement with the material.
• “First by shutting up… We must listen carefully for those words that may reveal a truth, that may reveal a voice.” (pg. 5) I feel it’s so important to sit back and give students the freedom to exist and write before swooping in. I want to see what the student is capable of, and the only way to do that is to allow them to do so. The instruction and guidance should take place before the writing, so when they finally do write, we can see if and what they learned.
• This reading discussed the importance of giving students the time and space to write, rewrite, and discover, which is something I agree with. However, it’s easier said than done. It’s hard to provide students with everything they need in this regard when you have to stay on track and students are working at drastically different paces. To me, it’s one of the saddest parts about teaching.

This chapter was quite interesting, in my opinion. As an English teacher, I’m naturally interested in hearing about what works and what doesn’t in the world of teaching English. Though this chapter discussed higher education, my perspective instinctively gravitates toward the teaching of elementary and high school students, and my opinions reflect that. Being an educator is not an easy task in the slightest, so any insight into how to improve our methods of instruction is beneficial for us all.

When I read, I tend to jot down quotes and notes that stand out to me. Below are some thoughts I pulled that I found particularly thought-provoking. Enjoy!

• “These scholars pointed out that the use of topics (‘places’ for discovering arguments) and status (finding the type of issue in dispute) helped students raise and investigate compelling questions in rhetorical situations; that employing informal enthymemes and examples rather than formal syllogistic reasoning strengthened students’ arguments” (pg. 4). As educators, it’s easy to fall into familiar routines, especially after years of teaching. This quote serves as a reminder that tradition isn’t always the answer. We need to stay on our toes and continually seek new ways to help students engage with the material. Often, the issue isn’t that students don’t understand the concepts being taught, but rather how those concepts are presented. It’s also crucial to make learning relatable. The phrase “informal enthymemes” stands out to me. School can be rigid and restrictive, but students often learn best in a more relaxed and relatable environment. Proposing informal arguments allows students to approach topics realistically and respond without the pressure of perfection.
• I really appreciated that the scholars took the time to research the roles of women and minorities in the history of rhetoric. Often, when people explore a subject’s history, they focus on just one perspective. As a minority woman, I value the commitment to provide a well-rounded view of this history. It’s essential to acknowledge diverse voices and experiences to gain a fuller understanding of the topic.
• This chapter highlights the importance of teaching rhetoric and composition in the age of AI. Many students are taking advantage of artificial intelligence but aren’t effectively tapping into their rhetorical and composition skills. It’s crucial not only to teach these skills but also to guide students on how to responsibly use AI to enhance their learning. By combining strong foundational skills with the effective use of technology, students can engage more deeply with their work.
• “From the mid-1960s, members of the emerging field of rhetoric and composition began to challenge the teaching of writing as a ‘product’ in which papers were assigned, handed in, and graded. Such teaching also focused on reading and discussing essays, completing exercises on style, and repeating drills on grammar. Little, if any, attention was paid to helping students get started, investigate ideas, consider readers, receive feedback on drafts, or revise” (pg. 7). I believe two truths can coexist here. This quote, along with the entire chapter, highlights the reality that many teachers are teaching to the tests, confined by curricula and standards, and often face challenges from administrations when they try to innovate. Ultimately, these issues are larger than the educators in the classroom. That said, both aspects mentioned are crucial to students’ learning. Students need to practice stylistic writing and understand grammar when necessary, but they also require support in starting their writing, receiving effective feedback, and exploring ideas. Balancing these elements is essential for fostering well-rounded writers.
• “George Hillocks’s meta-analysis demonstrated that direct grammar instruction has a negative effect on the use of “correct” grammar. However, this formalist pedagogy continues as students today face national assessments.” (pg.21) – This aligns with my previous thoughts.
• “In the 1970s, Frank O’Hare and others conducted extensive studies on the pedagogy of sentence combining, proclaiming that sentence combining could not only improve syntactic skills throughout the grades but also teach grammar without formal terminology” (pg. 11). Speaking of feedback, I believe teachers should make spelling and grammatical corrections while also providing valuable insights on improving content and clarity. Sometimes, teachers focus on one aspect or the other, but it’s essential to address both. Offering comprehensive feedback helps students refine their writing and develop a deeper understanding of their ideas. Balancing these elements ensures that students not only correct their mistakes but also enhance their overall communication.
• It’s no secret that America is facing a literacy crisis, and students aren’t learning how to read, let alone write. While we can have strong opinions about rhetoric and composition, our first priority should be addressing the reading issues we face as a country. Without strong reading skills, students struggle to engage with and understand writing, making it essential to focus on literacy as a foundational step in their education. Tackling this challenge is crucial for improving overall literacy and empowering students to become effective communicators.
• “Wayne Booth argued for the importance of considering audience, an aspect of writing that had been sidelined by the New Criticism” (pg. 9). I agree that students aren’t adequately taught about audiences. Since one teacher is often reading their work, students typically write for that sole audience. They struggle to write for that audience of one, let alone a variety of audiences. Regardless, this lapse in learning only hurts students when they enter higher education and other environments where they have to showcase their writing abilities.
• “Most composition courses still assume that the English teacher is the only reader for all papers in the course, thus failing to develop in students flexibility in writing for other readers, both academic and outside the academy. In grading papers, many teachers still do not take into account the suitability of the text for the intended reader. This issue is related to the continuing dominance of the modes of discourse—exposition, description, narration, and argumentation—which continues to place emphasis on the teacher as audience and on exposition and literary analysis as the types of writing assigned” (pg. 20). Reread my thoughts from the previous bullet point, hahaha!
• “All of these new classifications of discourse challenged the emphasis on teaching expository discourse throughout the grades and argued for the value of personal and persuasive discourse as well” (pg. 10). Again, both aspects are important for students’ learning. I don’t believe one is more important than the other, as both expository and persuasive writing include skills that will be utilized in and out of the classroom.
• “Elizabeth Flynn described a feminist approach to reading student papers that entails oscillating between empathy and judgment; speaking about moral problems, especially conflicting responsibilities; offering solutions to problems through contextual and narrative means; receiving the language of the student with understanding, warmth, and concern; and allowing multiple revisions (‘Learning’)” (pg. 12). Anything in life should be approached with understanding, so I love this feminist approach. It reminds me of the increasing popularity of holistic grading. As teachers, we need to meet students where they are and provide them the support they need, and this approach reflects that.
• “One of the issues opened up by this body of research was the extent to which ‘natural’ literacy (being immersed in community environments) or schooling can develop higher levels of literacy” (pg. 13). To me, this quote reiterates the importance of “it starts at home.” Studies repeatedly prove how beneficial it is for students to begin their learning in a supportive home environment and for that learning to be reinforced there as well. Learning would be a different experience if all students came from an environment of “natural” literacy.
• “Based on linguistic scholarship on regional and social dialects (e.g., the work of Geneva Smitherman and William Labov), the document rejected the requirement for a single American Standard English in all student writing and affirmed ‘the students’ right to their own patterns and varieties of language—the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style’ ” (pg. 14). I believe students should be given the space to use their own “languages” while also being taught when it’s necessary to employ academic writing skills. We don’t want students to lose their sense of self; we just want to add to their toolbox.
• “Currently, this effort has been linked with service-learning projects” (pg. 18). Civic rhetoric needs to be taught in every classroom. As someone who never learned about this yet ended up working in community service, I understand the impact of civic rhetoric. Not only does it enhance their knowledge of style, audience, etc., but it can also engage students since it presents a more relatable, realistic topic. This can be the gateway to a project or the larger duty of humans: how we can help others.
• “A newer issue is the challenge to process theories of composing by a postprocess theory of writing, which claims that providing guidance to students during composing is not useful; instead, teachers are advised to return to the pedagogy of interpreting finished texts as classroom writing instruction (Kent)” (pg. 21). I agree with this. While it’s important to support a student in the early stages, I also don’t like to give feedback too early on. I want to see what the student is capable of and let them get all their thoughts down before coming in to help polish what’s there.

Talking about myself is always so awkward for me, since I never know what to share. I don’t know about other people, but I don’t find myself to be incredibly interesting, so extracting something worth sharing can be a head-scratcher.

Well, I’m Brittney, and this is my second semester in the Writing Studies program. I received my undergraduate degree in teaching with a concentration in writing, and that’s what led me here. For a couple of years, I knew I wanted to get my master’s, but I wasn’t sure what I’d be studying. As my senior year approached, I realized I had to make a decision. There were only two programs at Kean that interested me, and I ultimately chose this one. I enjoyed writing, and the idea of a career in writing sounded appealing. Honestly, I just needed two more years to prepare myself before entering the real world.

My first semester was rough for me. I was experiencing a lot of life changes and firsts, so it was an extremely transitional time. Since I applied for this program with very little knowledge of what it would entail or what graduate school was like, I had no idea what I was walking into. I thought undergraduate studies were a breeze, partly due to my major and the fact that I had worked extremely hard in high school. When I finally got to college, it felt like a walk in the park. This made me incredibly naive, and I didn’t expect graduate school to be much different. To my surprise, it was much more intense with a heavier workload. On the bright side, now that I’ve settled into my new normal and know what to expect from graduate-level courses, I feel more optimistic about this semester.

Outside of school, I work for the university as a graduate assistant. I manage a team that plans community service events for the university. Though it can be stressful, I genuinely love my job. After I finish this degree, I’m not sure what I want to do, to be honest. I might continue working in project management, pursue a career in higher education, find a writing job, or work as a teacher. Nothing in particular is pulling at my heartstrings, so I’m open to all options.

When I’m not dwelling on my uncertain future, I enjoy reading, spending time with loved ones, and traveling. Sadly, I’m too busy to read during the semester, but during winter and summer breaks, I manage to read about one book every other day. It’s a very expensive hobby, but it’s worth every penny. I travel as much as I can, though not nearly as much as I’d like. This summer, I took three trips, including a graduation gift trip to St. Thomas. Enjoy these two pictures of me, as happy as a clam.

We went ATV driving up a mountain and through the island.