We will use this space weekly (unless otherwise specified) to post our weekly blog entries. Please see the Syllabus for detailed instructions on what to include in these post and how long they should be.
Something that stood out to me in this week’s readings was the emphasis on the social aspect of writing. Fulkerson said it when he acknowledged the “idea of writing as inherently social” when considering one’s audience (416). Students must consider their audience as they’re writing, but teachers must also be aware of students being aware of their audience. This affects process and the way a teacher teaches writing to their classes. But Bartholomae made the observation that students, depending on what they’ve been taught before getting to their college comp classes, may produce work that ticks all the boxes of what “good” writing looks like and leave their own personalities out of the equation. They’re writing for the teacher or for an unspecified “academic watcher” (my term). In a field where there are many approaches to composition instruction, formalist works still seem to be rewarded over other, more personal work that speaks to a broader or less erudite audience.
One possibly unrelated question I have is regarding Bartholomae’s use of the term “unauthorized writers.” I couldn’t tell if he was implying that some writers don’t have permission to write about a topic. I also wondered if the “unauthorized” part has a double meaning. If he were using “authorize” to mean something like “the act of writing as an author or authority,” then I understand what he was getting at. In this case, I might have used “inexperienced” or another related word. I also have the feeling that I'm completely missing the point of what Bartholomae meant and I’m just being unnecessarily pedantic.
On a personal note, as someone on the rhet/comp track of the English MA, I’m starting to get a more complete idea of the...antagonistic/contentious/adversarial...relationship between the writing arm of English departments and the literary branches of the department. I don’t understand why this competition exists. Does it come down to funding? Academic recognition? A turf war? What’s going on? Composition and literature go hand-in-hand. Without composition, there is no literature; and without literature, there’s no way to study composition. So why is it so hard to get these two fields to work together in some English departments?
Across all of our readings, I concluded that in order to be a good composition teacher, you have to know who you are as a teacher and what your personal styles, goals, and aesthetics are. I’m looking forward to discovering what I’ll be like as a teacher.
Something that stood out to me in this week’s readings was the emphasis on the social aspect of writing. Fulkerson said it when he acknowledged the “idea of writing as inherently social” when considering one’s audience (416). Students must consider their audience as they’re writing, but teachers must also be aware of students being aware of their audience. This affects process and the way a teacher teaches writing to their classes. But Bartholomae made the observation that students, depending on what they’ve been taught before getting to their college comp classes, may produce work that ticks all the boxes of what “good” writing looks like and leave their own personalities out of the equation. They’re writing for the teacher or for an unspecified “academic watcher” (my term). In a field where there are many approaches to composition instruction, formalist works still seem to be rewarded over other, more personal work that speaks to a broader or less erudite audience.
ReplyDeleteOne possibly unrelated question I have is regarding Bartholomae’s use of the term “unauthorized writers.” I couldn’t tell if he was implying that some writers don’t have permission to write about a topic. I also wondered if the “unauthorized” part has a double meaning. If he were using “authorize” to mean something like “the act of writing as an author or authority,” then I understand what he was getting at. In this case, I might have used “inexperienced” or another related word. I also have the feeling that I'm completely missing the point of what Bartholomae meant and I’m just being unnecessarily pedantic.
On a personal note, as someone on the rhet/comp track of the English MA, I’m starting to get a more complete idea of the...antagonistic/contentious/adversarial...relationship between the writing arm of English departments and the literary branches of the department. I don’t understand why this competition exists. Does it come down to funding? Academic recognition? A turf war? What’s going on? Composition and literature go hand-in-hand. Without composition, there is no literature; and without literature, there’s no way to study composition. So why is it so hard to get these two fields to work together in some English departments?
Across all of our readings, I concluded that in order to be a good composition teacher, you have to know who you are as a teacher and what your personal styles, goals, and aesthetics are. I’m looking forward to discovering what I’ll be like as a teacher.