Writing on Writing
Discussions for ENGL 5060 at Texas Tech University
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Online Face-to-Face Classroom
This is my final project for ENGL5060:
This is a supporting video - a simulated online writing class (or writing lab) as proof of concept. For best results, view this video in HD, full screen.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Nobody Reads Your Blog
Friday, July 22, 2011
Haswell through Du Gay
As a recovering grammar geek, I'm interested in the ways Haswell discusses criteria as a part of "regulation." We've covered pretty thoroughly the ways in which these criteria (standard grammar, syntax, spelling, and the like) function as shibboleths for the elite. With very few exceptions, these criteria mark us by our class.
- productive
- appropriate (to some criterion)
- efficient
- accurate
- clear
- brief
- and sincere.
Friday, July 15, 2011
In Which I Learned About the Underlife
One of the many delightful aspects of studying communication is that the scholarship so often crashes into other fields. Robert Brooke's take on the Underlife is just such a delightful detour into sociology.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Conversation, Meaning-Making, and Collaboration
What students do when working collaboratively on their writing is not write or edit, or least of all, read proof. What they do is converse. They talk about the subject and about the assignment. ... Most of all they converse about and as a part of writing. (Bruffee, p. 553)
Writing is both a process and a product. I have to admit that it struck me when I read "They talk about the subject..." You mean, they're not just talking about the assignment requirements? They might actually engage with the subject? What a great idea!
More important, and germaine to Bruffee's point, is that their discussion is meaning-making. This creativity that we so prize is socially generated because it springs from knowledge that is socially generated. Yes, there are certainly lone auteurs who get all their inputs from books and write in a bubble, insulated from the world. But the rest of us have to talk with one another, work through ideas, get clarification, and work through drafts. And why should this surprise us? Most TCers, copywriters, and journalists write in community. So why shouldn't students write in community as well? (I'd like to note here the irony. I never liked group projects in school.)
Abnormal Discourse![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgT_mquw2USZzyozBr4FGQj_4Bqc0nn389VPnqEyfdpoxXvVzo-FA1mNlYGC-ujIFf30ljbowuvkGQcoyPC897nXzPLV-SO5DwEUwg4CUNVmsuZsUPPNU5usz4AScHgJ82sskY1CbudUGXN/s320/Kooning_woman_v.jpg)
The discussion of "abnormal discourse" in Bruffee really perked up my ears as well. Does creation of new knowledge really require "abnormal discourse?" In a previous class with Dr. Kemp, we discussed the concept of "disturbed knowledge." In order to publish anything useful and anything someone will want to read, we have to introduce disturbed knowledge, or "abnormal discourse."
Friday, June 24, 2011
Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Toeing the line
I've been thinking about the bright line between "bad writing" and "good writing," at least as we can draw it in the most traditional way. I think that many of the rules Dr. Kemp mentions in his discussion of formalist "error-free" composition are vestigial holdovers from Latin. Some of them didn't come from Latin, but they no longer mean anything. Why does it matter if I split an infinitive in English? Why can't I end a sentence with a preposition? Sometimes a sentence should start with a conjunction, even if doing so technically makes it a fragment. Who cares? Because these conventions do nothing to make students better writers. I've read many awful, yet error-free papers.
On the other hand...
I'm sure that many experienced composition teachers can provide examples, but I can't think of a single student paper that could be considered in any way "good" when the student demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the conventions of style, grammar, and spelling. Those papers were universally awful quite apart from their significant mechanical problems.
In other words, if a student hasn't mastered the basic conventions of written language, there is very little chance that he or she has mastered higher-order skills like style, invention, metaphor, storytelling, or argumentation. Dr. Kemp said it in the podcast: good writers are readers. And readers pick up the mechanical conventions at the same time they pick up the higher-order skills.
So that leads to the question...
It's a series of small questions, really, but it's interesting to me. Which skills are important? What constitutes an error? Isn't every composition toeing a formal line? Writing strictly formally, here are are the errors up with which I will not put:
- Misspellings and the abuse of homonyms
The former led to the spellchecker, which obscured the latter in mechanistic camouflage. And while we're at it: "Their," "they're," and "there." They're not that hard. - Egregious misuse of punctuation.
I don't really care about the Oxford comma, or the placement of commas in dependent clauses, unless this placement affects meaning. For beginners, I encourage liberal use of the period as a check against the dreaded run-on sentence. Many problems can be fixed by breaking these gargantuan crimes against style into smaller sentences. Of course, the apostrophe is a terrible punctuation mark, but I insist that students learn it. - The run-on sentence and the comma splice
- Various sins too egregious to count
Yes, this one is a cop-out. I'm writing here about errors that are so ungrammatical that they confuse the reader. I mean the truly egregious errors that give English teachers a shiver and make Shakespeare twitch in his grave: subject/verb disagreement, true (nonsensical) fragments, mixed tenses, and their many, many counterparts. - Inauthentic voice
A broadly defined crime against writing, "inauthentic voice" comes when students try to write for no audience in a tone they imagine as "academic." This inauthentic voice is the perpetrator of: esoteric words that don't quite fit, the use of "myself" when "me" is the correct pronoun, tortured constructions, long sentences, nominalization, deletion of the agent, weak verbs, vague propositions (especially in introductions) and the like. It's hard to pin down in a short description, but it is awful. You know it when you see it.
I suspect that even the most anti-foundational teacher of composition forces students to toe a line somewhere. Where do you draw yours?