Bam by Amanda Winalski

Bam - these student essays are killing me.

After taking a page or so to get to her point - that she used to believe that the ability to communicate effectively was more important than effectively communicating - she continues with the experience that led her to the revelation that the transition from high school to college consists of a student's willingness to learn, understand and modify the rules of grammar in order to communicate ideas.  the odd thing is that the mistakes she recounts making as an inept writing student are the very same here - she never quiet gets to the point of defining what college level writing is, prose is long and complex without reason (i.e. sentences could be more efficient), etc.  \

It could be that she is trying to model what bad college writing typically is...but why make me suffer through it?

Putting on the Sunglasses: The Argumentative Thesis as the Keystone to "Good' College Writing by Mike Quilligan

While easy to read, this essay easily breaks my top three list of articles i'm looking forward to burn.

The author's conclusion is that college writing is explicative writing, i.e. that it's a matter of sufficiently explaining thier topic.  He takes to task the curriculum at Indiana University by stating that students often pick up the attitudes and beliefs of the texts they're assigned to read rather than to imbed thier own ideas into thier papers.  He attempts to use a 1988 movie as an analogy, but i'm not sure how it's supposed to work; his idea seems to be that we need to ask students "So what?" so that they are forced to explain - to which i imagine that he's never postulated the possibility that students might not care to explain thier ideas.

The Great Conversation (of the Dining Hall): One Student's Experience of College Level Writing

the first thought that struck me as i read this is that this is exactly what one of the contributors to this book said should not be considered as college writing- it is a piece largely constructed from the student's observation and experiences - which i probably why i loved reading it.

That said, that's pretty much what the entire essay is about.  We get two essays and the experienes that came with them: one in high school and the other in college.  In both cases, the experience is similar: she struggles to produce something worth reading, passionately diving into the process so that she can having something validated by those whom she respects.  However, it seems to me that the process she's describing is more about the ideas she was formulating rather than the writing; once she learns that she can write the way her brother can play music, with cadence, style, tempo and all that jazz,she never returns to that particular subjects, leaving us with the impression that college level writing is all about communication of ideas and the struggle to formulate them. 

Vocabulary as a Means of Defining First-Year Composition by Kathleen Blake Yancey with Brian M. Morrison

The key argument here is that vocabulary is the key to teaching composition as well as the standards of what college level writing should be defined by.  She makes the distinction between teaching literature and teaching writing, but more importantly between teaching processes/practices and teaching terms.  The article runs parallel between her discussion of the subject with what i am assuming to be a paper by a senior student (Brian M. Morrison) on blogs.    Her argument, essentially, is that in teaching the specialized terms of the craft (composition), students will be better prepared to compose; writing is the content of a writing class.

I agree with this; as a math teacher, i don't students how to solve restaurant-tip problems; i teach them the concept of percents, decimals and fractions and then give them the practice and guidance to apply said concepts and skills to the problems at hand. 

Defining by Assessing by Edward M. White

After toying around with the titular question, White points out that college level writing is like pornography - "a term with little instrinsic meaning, though in common enough use", meaning that while it is difficult to define, everyone assumes to know what it means.   His paper focuses not on what he believes college level writing should be, but rather what college assessment assumes it to be, analyzing various assessment standards to discover thier assumptions on the matter.  Of course, there are problems with this sort of analysis, one being that any assessment analyzed only produces conclusions at the campus using said assessment.

He first looks at a scoring guide developed in 1988 by the California State University system; after analyzing the criterion he reaches the concluson that, according to the scoring guide, college level writing pays careful attention to the question, has a full and organized development of a response and reasonable mechanical correctness give the nature of a first draft. 

After giving two examples of student essays as well as the comments provided by the readers giving the grade, his conclusion is that college level writing as a term is meaningless since any definition we provide tell us more about the individual than the term.  According the to him, the best way to define college level writing is to examine the criteria and sample writings provided by institutions.

However...aren't criteria decided upon by individuals?

A Community College Professor Reflects on First Year Composition by John Perkins

John Perkins begins by stating that the purpose of ENC 1101 College Composition (what I presume to be the FYC at the community college where he is employed) is to expose students to the practices of one specific form of writing: academic discourse.  One of the reasons students have a problem learning the form and style of academic discourse, he states, is the general decline in reading which he attributes to a lack of reading among FYC students and the attittude among those that do that reading is boring - which he then connects to the passive/addictive qualities of the television/video medium. He also claims that public school teachers have accepted this general decline in reading and so require less reading that was what required of them at that particular part of thier lives. 

The other reason that students have problems participating in academic discourse is that students have no interest in the "traditional values" of college education; the only reason that they are in college is because of what college can do for them financially and therefore, academic discourse has no value to them. 

Part of the solution, according to John Perkins, is that the profession must take upon itself to identify criteria and methods of evaluation of student writing.  A lot of what follows in his article are suggestions of how it could work and its benefits.  This leads him to also question the point of including the personal experiences and observations of the student if the the purpose of an FYC is academic discourse.  This in turn leads him to indicate that part of the solution is more reading - that to focus solely on writing in a composition course is to ignore half of the process (his analogy is very convincing).   He includes in his sales pitch that stricter standards and criteria might first cause higher failure rates, noting that this change in curriculum would have to begin in the beginnings of public school. 

Do You believe in Magic? Collaboration and the Demystification of Research by Kathleen McCormick

McCormick decides to focus on the skills required to write a research paper becasue it is a type of writing the majority of students find most challenging and it is the least taught. She presents a collaborative pedagogy involving the discussion and debate of perspectives and genuine revision. She claims that this encourages students to move away from formulaic writing and to take an original position on a topic. With this we will the elusive college-level writing we are looking for.

In presenting her pedagogy she critiques what she calls the silent classroom, insiting on "instructing students explicitly in the process of how to engage in an assignment" (207). Many teachers leave the instructing to the textbooks, but they are not clear enough and oftentimes leave students confused and isolated. She proposes allowing the class to research together and collaborate/workshop products and progress at all stages, including finding sources. They help each other along, but write their own papers. This gives them an opportunity to see different models and methods of it supports thinking. They learn from eachother and discover, along with the teacher, their strengths and weaknesses.

I thought that this was a very good idea for students that are new to the researching porocess, adn I really liked her synthesis activity. Having students review each other's sources and summarizes and connect the information provided is a great way to teach a combination of skills. Although the focus on research presented a helpful and unique perspective, it is not the only type of writing necessary at the college level and is very different than other formats. However many of the skills enforced, if learned, should transfer well.

The idea that college-level writing should not be formulaic has been discussed in several other essays, and studetns taking an original position is akin to having an original voice, original thoughts. Overall, I felt the information provided was helpful, but not groundbreaking as far as defining college-level writing. Haven't really seen it in most of what I've read so far.

From Attitude to Aptitude: Assuming the Stance of a College Writer by Ronald F. Lunsford

To start off, I would like to say that this has been my favorite piece so far. It was organized, sound in logic, and very straightforward about presenting ideas and answers.

After addressing the by now well-known difficulties surrounding the task, Lunsford offers a definition for the term college-level writing: "skills, knowledge, and attitudes [students] bring to college, assets that will allow them to develop their abilities to produce the types of writing we value in our institutions" (179). I love this definition for two reasons. One, although it seems general, he will clearly demonstrate what he means by this; he is focusing on one thing-a state of being. Two, this is something that should be attainable for every student. As he gets into his examples we see that it is not about perfection or a formulaic standard, it is about having an open mind and being willing to learn (in other words to actually do what you are supposed to go to college for).

As mentioned, the author backs up his claim with studetn writing samples. His first example is presented and analyzed. It is not perfect but is sophisticated in thought and organization. The student expresses the right attitude, opens himself up to learnign of all kinds. His analysis of the samplegoes beyond surface form and features to abilities. The second sample, though grammatical, using strategies any high school teacher would die to see, is clearly of a different caliber. "This student approaches this writing situation with an attitude that prevents the kind of thought and rhetorical awareness we would encourage" (190). The student expresses no awareness of audience and no desire to open her mind to new ideas. The examples presented make it clear what he values and why it is important.

Lunsford does discuss Sullivan's criteria for college-level writing and states it can be useful, but stands by attitude as the most important factor. I would have to agree. A student needs to be able to read, write and discuss complex ideas, be able to interact with other perspectives in order to attain the level of writing necessary for a college setting. This is greatly helped along by sophistacated control of grammar and language, but the key is in the thought and the thought process. When Lunsford says, "our attitude determines our aptitude" (196), I agree 100%.

It may not be a checklist to go through while reading a text, but then I don't think any contributor to this book would say that is what we need more of. It gives a new angle for approaching college-level criteria and indicators and should be given further thought.

Scripting Writing Across Campuses: Writing Standards and Student Representations by Cynthia Kewiecki-Wilson and Ellenmarie Cronin Wahlrab

This essay discusses how the tiering of campuses alters expectations for student writing. This is explained through the discussion of the division of Miami Oxford campuses and how this created a double standard for student writing goals. While the overall institution claimed to value liberal arts and higher level writing skills, and students at the branch campus were supposed to be able to work to transfer to the main campus, it began to appear that the students were at the branch campus for a different reason. The two year college, funded by outside agencies, was gearing more towards a vocational school,focusing on preparing students for the workforce. While this can be seen as a negative thing, Wahlrab used it as an opportunity to create a student centered classroom where students questioned their learning and analyzed exigencies.

Throughout this discussion, the authors make several claims about universal standards and standardized testing. While they do not agree with tiering of campuses and the lowering or shifting of expectations that can follow, they also feel that analyzing a student's writing sills or potential cannot be achieved "by basing assessment on a single text taken out of its rhetorical context" (173). They advocate assessment practices that require "more than reading and scoring discrete texts against a concept of a universal standard" (173).

What I see here again is a very general or vague proposed solution. They propose the idea that the evaluation of college-level writing is contingent on rhetorical context but give no basis on how to apply this. How are we supposed to measure this, especially since they are against a universal standard? If there is no standard, how can we ensure the transfer of skills and preparedness from one campus to another, one area of the country to another, if there are none? I am noticing that this question is summoning even more questions as opposed to answers.

What is College Writing For? by Ellen Andrews Knodt

This essay asks us to focus on the purpose of college-writing before we try to define it. THe goals of writing courses and programs are very different from instructor to instuctor, from university to university across the country. This affects student ability to transfer skills and our ability to define what we would like them to transfer. Knodt analyzes several common composition programs (the five-paragraph essay, classical rhetoric, sociopolitical, WAC, first-year orientation, and professional writing) and shows how they provide students with very different backgrounds and experiences in writing. She claims that one single approch to composition pedagogy is both improbable and impractical, but urges the different paradigms to collaborate and communicate , to use the WPA outcomes as a "template or touchstone" (152) to help students know what they need to be successful in any writing classroom. This would in turn provide a definition for college-level writing.

I think is a very good way of demonstarting the need for communication among writing faculty (though not a new idea), but the closest she comes to defining college level writing is the WPA Outcomes. I guess this is better than not defining it at all.

It's Not the High School Teachers' Fault: An Alternative to the Blame Game by Peter Kittle

The author begins with the blame game: college faculty blame high school teachers, high school teachers blame middle school teachers, middle school teachers blame elementary teachers and elementary teachers blame parents and parents blame each other; ok, i made the last part up, but it's probably true.  anyway, he goes on to describe his experience teaching high school; students were rarely engaged unless debating polarized issues that never led to "reasoned discourse".  Teaching was modal: informational, compare/contrast, persuasive, research, etc. More than anything, there was an emphasis on avoiding errors; "clean presentation trumps smart, complex argument", which led of course to simpler sentence structures and formulaic essays. 

In many ways the author is middle of the road; while he acknowledges that the only reason he taught the five-paragraph essay was because it was easy to teach, he also acknowledges that "expedience and efficiency matter tremendously when facing five classes a day, which over thirty students per class" (and people wonder why i prefer teaching math).  However, he reaches the conclusion that "correctness and form attain meaning only through the purposeful communicating of important, relevant ideas", suggesting that there must be an alternative, the alternative being "long-term partnerships between public school and college teachers" since "real change takes time".  The reason a partnership is necessary is because "the circumstances and contexts of high school and college writing classes are very different and those circumstances and contexts strongly impact pedagogy": "the institutional context [of a public high school] privilige[s] a pedagogy of compliance, wherein students were expected (and accustomed) to simply follow directions and do thier best to meet the teacher's expectations." whereas in a college writing course "students must be able and willing to take resonsability for engaging with the course materials and discussions". 

Hm.  Amazing how doing this in the morning instead of at night after a full day of work changes things.

What Does the Instructor Want? The View of the Writing Center by Muriel Harris

The author states that college level writing should demonstrate the writer's ability to write effectively to his or her particular audience; essentially to write reader-based prose.  The author's basis for this conclusion is the fact that a paper that would be considered exemplar for a composition class would be interpreted as innappropriate for an engineering course.  His assertion is that novice writers write writer-based prose, prose that only takes the writer into consideration whereas experienced writers keep thier audience as thier priority when constructing thier essays. 

I'm not too sure where i stand on this.  As a writer, I do take my audience into consideration, but i'm not writing for my audience.  my writing must meet my standards first before i care what the audience thinks.  on the other hand, i've written attempting to elicit a specific response from my audience and i consider myself successful when i've done so.

The Boxing Effect (An Anti Essay) by Jeanne Gunner

The basic argument here is that in asking what is college writing, we limit what writing is by defining it, especially since by defining it we reduce writing to a product of our capitalist culture.  would say more, but it's midnight.

Good Enough Writing: What Is Good Enough Writing, Anyway? by Lynn Z. Bloom

Lynn Z. Bloom begins by defining college-level writing as the type pf writing we will accept or deem "good enough". Good enough writing merits a B in whatever course it was written for. But in discussing this concepts she emphasizes that this idea of good enough reading is actually not good enough. Instructors should not cave on their expectations for critical thinking (or any other aspect of writing for that matter) according to the climate of the classroom but should be striving for excellence. She explains that teachers can be sensitive to a student's background and circumstances while still enforcing standards. While an adherence to rules and standards is expressed as necessary, she also poses the claim that we should be asking studetns to go beyond, at times even reject the standards of good enough in order to avoid boring or pedestrian writing.

She does acknowledge the fact that this rejecting of enforced standards is hard to teach, but says it is important to at least expose students to the idea. I think this fits into the idea presented by Muriel Harris (to be discussed in further detail in that post) about college-level writing needing to show growth and maturation. Although not complete in and of itself, this idea of maturation and pushing past mediocrity is a good way to describe at least one aspect of what makes for good writing at the college level.

Whose Paper Is This, Anyway? Why Most Students Don't Embrace the Writing They Do for Thier Writing Classes by Michael Dubson

The author here addresses the issue of why students in writing classes have a tendency to not care about the effort and time that they have put into thier papers, citing as an example that, after having returned thier papers with corrections, he always finds a few in the trash can before he leaves.  He starts by looking at student attitudes about writing and writers, noting that students who dislike or fear writing will respect those that are successful at writing out of the belief that these successful students have talent - which is a myth that writing teachers need to dispel since his belief is that writing is a skill that can be taught.  From looking at student attitudes over writing, he expands to student attitudes over college, noting that while students want to be considered smart, they don't want to be considered nerds - therefore students are careful not to put too much effort, just enough to be smart, but not too much to be considered nerdish.  Another attitude is that college is a means to an end, muck like most jobs in our world today - ergo, what students care about is the grade they recieve on thier paper, not the paper itself. 

After examining student attitudes, the author examines faculty attitudes, pointing out that while most academics claim that FYCs are incredibly important, few faculty members actually want or are willing to teach these courses.   He then moved on to institutional inconsistencies, noting that while tuition is at its highest, government and corporate aid is at its lowest.

The Truth about High School English by Milka Mustenikova Mosley

The author begins by differentiating between high school writing and college level writing; the former is formulaic, due to while the latter "should focus more on student's ideas and exhibit his or her individuality".  She makes various interesting points:

        - "college theory and high school practice differ greatly"
        - "Just like students, high school English teachers have to conform to and cover the curriculum              
            approved by our school boards because everything we do is closely monitored by standardized
            testing."
        - "Besides testing, we also have to deal with daily interruptions such as assemblies and pep rallies and
            sometimes even discipline problems."
        -"However, it is important for college educators to understand that our English classes are not
           composition classes, but are surveys of literature classes..."
        -"All of a sudden upon entering college, students become serious and responsible and try hard to keep
           the scholarships they have obtained, justify the school expenses to parents with good grades, or hold
           two jobs to pay for thier college classes personally."

In short she tells the truth of how things are.

The Salem Witch Trials: Voice(s)

The author believes that college level writing is really self-expression; i.e. when you've found your voice as a writer, you're writing at college level, voice being "when the writer recognizes in her or his prose or poetry a stle, tone, personality, and rhythm that work".  His method of writing's also different: "writers learn by writing" and it shows; he includes quite a remarkable amount of what is truly remarkable writing by students of various ages.  He ends by concluding that college level writing is "a good choice of words...using unique words to her or him"

Am I a Liar: The Angst of a High School English Teacher

This author laments how he languishes in the high school classroom teaching students "how to research, to evaluate the validity of sources, and to document thier sources using MLA format" while college professors get to "sail through uncharted linguistic waters, throwing rules overboard at whim, gaining thier students' approval and respect at every turn".  And that's pretty much the entire articles, which then emphasizes his point that college graduates can "write exquisite prose that did not mean a thing", failing however to realize that he's doing the same thing.

Chapter Two: Whistling in the Dark by Merrill J. Davies

The title alludes to the fact that the author feels that high school teachers are "whistling in the dark": "pretending to be confident when they are in fact scared to death" that what they're teaching isn't aligned with college expectations.  Nevertheless, the author feels that there are four areas where students must be prepared : mechanics, analytical skills, the ability to develop a specific idea in detail, and the ability to organize said ideas in such a way so that readers can follow said ideas with ease.  He acknowledges that voice is becoming prevalent among academic circles, but notes that it doubtful that professors can create exact guidelines for college level writing. 

High School Perspectives

This section will be for comments and evaluations regarding the contributions by high school teachers to the dialogue concerning "college-level" writing.

Introduction

This is the area where Daniel and Melissa will be desicussing the introductory chapter of the book. We will share our thoughts on the goals and procedures of this "search for answers".

This is Week Seven

ok, we're officially starting to read this thing! 

yeah, how exciting.

We have the books.

So, yeah, we have the books. What did you expect?

And so it begins...

Today we ordered the books. And now we wait.