Mina P. Shaughnessy

I am going to be doing a lot, I mean a lot of rambling on in this blog...so be prepared.
The presence of remedial courses at most colleges today is evidence of the failure of elementary and secondary schools to consistently turn out students with adequate language skills. In an Introduction to Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing, by Mina P. Shaughnessy, “There is the reality of academia, the fact that most college teachers have little tolerance for the kinds of errors BW students make, that they perceive certain types of errors as indicators of ineducability, and that they have the power of the F” (392). There can be a huge difference between English written by native speakers and the English written by people who use it as a second language. I have nothing but admiration for people who master a second language. It takes years of dedication. But no matter how much effort one puts into learning English, it is the rare person indeed who can write it like someone born to the task.Text that is difficult to understand, or that contains distracting mistakes, will fail to connect an audience. They’ll notice the flaws, such as misspellings and improperly used idioms, and their attention will be shifted away from the message.Language, skillfully used, has the power to make a connection between writer and reader. As Mina P. Shaughnessy puts it, “So absloute is the importance of error in the minds of many writers that ‘good writing’ to them means ‘correct writing,’ nothing more” (392).
High standards of grammar, spelling, and punctuation should be expected in schools; but these mean nothing if the content itself doesn’t express the writer’s ideas accurately. I’ve had people say to me that perfection in writing is not important enough to spend time on. As long as the reader gets the drift, that’s good enough for them. That kind of thinking is dead wrong, and here’s why: errors in writing are not benign things that readers gloss over and ignore. Errors do damage! Errors will result in failure to effectively convey thoughts or information, and worse, can create serious misunderstandings. Even small mistakes draw the reader’s attention away from the subject matter and focus it on the errors themselves. Even if they are not severe enough to cause a misunderstanding about what is being said (and all too often, they are), errors still obscure the message and detract from the writer’s image. Early schooling doesn’t necessarily demand adherence to high standards, and concentrates instead on ideals like “self expression” (without any regard to the content) or “self-esteem” (without any regard to achievement). “Error is more than a mishap; it is a barrier that keeps someone not only from writing something in formal English but from having something to write” (394). I have my own issues with that kind of educational focus, which I believe leaves many bright students without the necessary tools and discipline to succeed. I think there are two separate parts to learning to be a good English writer. First you need to master the foundations of the language (grammar and vocabulary) and then you need to develop style. So what’s the problem? The problem is reflected in the growing numbers of students’ who can no longer write in the formal, professional style that academia demands.
I know that I rattled on, but this issue is very near and dear to my heart. My grandmother can write and read probably at an 8th grade level...creating many obstacles in her life that could have been avoided had she had one teacher take the time and instill basic writing and reading concepts to her. It’s a vicious cycle in the education system when there are many who graduate highschool to start their collegiate years not even having an understanding of Basic English. BOO to those educators! You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Short Story

Theory to Practice
Donald Murray clearly understands that times have changed, and teaching compoistion does too. In his essay, Finding Your Own Voice: Teaching Composition in an Age of Dissent, he clealry states his feelings by declaring, “The times indeed are revolutionary, cleansingly so. And they uniquely offer the composition teacher the opportunity to play a pioneer role in constructing an educational system which removes students’ responsibilities from the teacher and places them firmly on the student” (Murray 118).Writing is an essential skill that all students must learn to do while in school. Though, how the teacher chooses to enstill such knowledge plays a key factor in the student’s success. While observing Mrs. Simms, a secondary ESL/composition teacher, I examined how she implemented Murray’s belief of freedom in the classroom in the following ways: writing assignments, grading, and the diversity of the students’ contradictory voices to be heard.
Mrs. Simms recognizes that writing is a mighty instrument of thought. In, A Framework for Teaching, by Geoffrey Squires, he sees eye to eye with Murray’s theory of expressivism. Squires states, “The teacher may be ‘there for’ his or her students in ways that escape the formulaic confines of method” (Squires 348). Mrs. Simms uses journals in her classroom to foster thinking and learning in different ways. Students’ have the choice to write about things of personal interest for 15 minutes everyday at the beginning of class. Having students’ journal is one way to help them participate, and self-direct their own learning. As Murray wrote, “The student may be shown how to percieve, but he has to do his own percieving” (Murray 119). Also, Mrs. Simms permits her students to write creatively, giving them choices on assignments. For example, the students’ were given a broad assignment to write a paper on one of their most fond memories. They could present it in the form of a paper or poem. Her classroom is based on freedom and flexibility, major components in Murray and Squires opinion.
Murray’s theory suggests that, “Grades, of course, are ridiculous during the writing course. An “A” deludes a student into thinking an early draft is final copy, while an “F” convinces another student that there is no hope” (Murray121). Mrs. Simms finds a happy medium with grading. Instead of grading the journal entries, she comments, or offers positive remarks, upbeat questions, and encouragement. This helps students’ focus on what they think, and an opportunity to help them observe their writing errors on their own. Squires remarks about grading needing to have constructive criticism; “The role of the teacher giving encouraging reflection on the learning process and the students’ own self-image as a learner” (Squires 345). Similar to Murray and Squires, Mrs. Simms believes that if she does not allow her students’ to make mistakes, she will be taking away from the natural learning process required to achieve competency and confidence.
Voice is crucial in the classroom. Writing allows one to learn about themselves and their world and communicate their insights to others. Just as Murray and Squires feel, Mrs. Simms, “will break the class up so that individual students’ exchange papers, and have the class read each other’s papers in small groups” (Murray 120). In most cases, the students’ will better understand the problems of their peer’s and be able to voice the solution better than the teacher. Expressivism as Murray and Squires maintain, is that voice is the major role in good writing. In Mrs. Simms classroom, it is very apparent that voice is key. She tends to fall back and let the class take charge. She challenges them to be participants and spectators, giving her students’ a sense of empowerment and responsibility.
Mrs. Simms has embraced Murray’s concluding thoughts, “The teacher of composition should welcome the age of dissent. He should glory diversity, and he should discover that by giving his students’ freedom they will accept responsibility” (Murray 123). I truly think that expressivist teaching allows so much more growth from the student. Expressivist theory allows the student to think and write in a reflective manner, thus, creating a wonderful way to learn and think and speak more clearly, to be more precise, and more actively aware of what ones own thoughts and ideas consist of. Mrs. Simms is a superb teacher, and I applaud her methods of teaching!

"Rhetorical Pdagogy"

Iam finding that rhetoric is all over the place…literally. But it's not just the definition of rhetoric that is all over the place - it's the actual disciplinary practice of it that is sprawled everywhere. After I finished reading, Rhetorical Pedagogy, by William Covino, I felt exasperated by all of the definitions and theories. Though, there were two “modern masters” during the twentieth-century that impacted my thoughts on rhetoric; Kenneth Burke and Kennedy.
Burke defiines rhetoric as, “the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols, thus revealing his essential and ongoing interest in the associational uses of language, for bringing together disparate or incongruous ideas, and for promoting the identification of different individuals and groups with one another” (45). Burke’s theory, dramatism, is simplistic and realistic for anyone. Dramatism is broken down into two parts: action and motion. Action is something that people do on purpose in way of their voluntary behavior. Motions are behaviors that are non-purposeful and non-meaningful. Actions deal with the basic forms of thought. While, motives are the way people understand events and the suggestions for response inherent to the dialogue that it presents for its audience. In order for motives to be understood further, Burke presents what is knows as the Pentad. Basically, the Pentad is: who, when, where, why and how. This can be applied to just about anything that happens in the world. I found that the Pentad was very easy to understand and I really believe that one could apply it to a very simple scenario or to a more complex one. I believe that Burke’s dramatism works well because it is organized and easily understood.
I connected with Kennedy’s theory mainly from a quote by him in Rhetorical Pedagogy. “Rhetoric is the most general sense may perhaps be identified with the energy inherent in communication: the emotional energy that impels the speaker to speak, the physical energy expended in the utterance, the energy level coded in the message, and the energy experienced by the recipient in decoding the message” (48). I strongly feel that emotion plays a huge part in both the speaker and the recipient. Emotion and energy is what makes writing great. It is what seperates the good from the bad. Kennedy is acknowledging that there has to be a connection between the writer and the reader. Again, the simplicity of Kennedy’s theory fascinated me. It is very easily understood which helps the not so devoted reader understand the meaning of rhetoric. ; )

Donald Murray

Donald Murray


“Finding Your Own Voice: Teaching Composition in the Age of Dissent,” by Donald Murray really held my interest the majority of all of the assigned readings for this week. I feel like everything that we discussed during our last class, Murray reinstated in his article. Murray writes, “I do get discouraged, mostly because the students have had no freedom, and when they find their voice, it has not been tempered by experience” (118). I believe that each and every student is an individual, thus, making each person’s writing styles different. The students’ voice is what makes each of his/her writing distinct from any others’. By not allowing academic freedom in compoistion, the students’ creativity has been smoldered…the fire has gone out. In my opinion, the only way you can develop your own voice is to live your life as fully as possible and spend a great deal of time listening to what is going on inside your own head. Everything you have seen and done and smelled and touched and listened to and experienced has gone into making you the person you are. And if your writing is to be original and authentic it is this person's voice that should come out on paper. Helping the reader see things through your eyes, your thoughts, your attitudes, is part of writing with your own voice. Though, the teacher more than often tells the student what to write about, what is expected, and how he/she should feel. “Too often the composition teacher not only denies his students freedom, he even goes further and performs the key writing tasks for his students. He gives an assignment; he lists sources; he dictates the form; and by irresponsibly conscientious correcting, he actually revises his students’ papers” (118). In the end, the student leaves the class not knowing how to write, or even wanting to express himslef through writing. The student has been cheated of an education, of attaining some kind of knowledge on creativity and expression. I believe in Murray’s four responsibilites of a teacher: to create a psychological and physical environment in which the student can fulfill his responsibiltes; enforce the deadline of when writing assignments are to be turned in; the teacher needs to stop trying to create a world in which success for the majority day by day is what is expected and normal; and lastly, the teacher is not the diagnostician…a good composition teacher does not see every little error on the paper, but merely listens to the students’ own diagnosis and how he/she would solve any problems. An experienced teacher would suggest alternatives and give positive feedback, waiting for the student to understand his own errors. I do believe guidance is very crucial in composition. As a last comment on writing with your own voice, I'd like to share with you the words of a woman named Margaret Fuller Ossoli, who wrote in the New York Tribune in 1846, “Truth is the nursing mother of genius. No man can be absolutely true to himself, eschewing cant, compromise, servile imitation and complaisance, without becoming original, for there is in every creature a fountain of life, which, if not choked back by stones and other dead rubbish, will create a fresh atmosphere and bring to life fresh beauty.” I thank my freshman comp.professor for sharing this quote with her class on the first day. She set the most mesmerizing mood that captivated each and every student’s creativity and has made my writing flourish with freedom!

"The Feminization of Rhetoric and Composition Studies"

I would like to start this blog out with a quote from Lauers’, The Feminization of Rhetorical and Composition Studies, “In composition, the term feminization appears to mean the dominance or predominance of women” (pg.546). The feminization of teaching and the status of women are vital in understanding the role and perception of teaching in America. During the Colonial period, prior to women's entry into the teaching profession, the public began to view women's basic education as worthwhile, mostly so that they could pass religion and moral values on to their children. As a result, women's literacy rate increased. Though, in the 1800’s, an ultra-domestic feminine ideal reigned, known as domesticity and true womanhood. Women were supposed to be protectors of virtue and to build domestic, pure homes while isolating themselves from the world. Society recognized the values of female nurturance as well as discipline in education. Teaching was one way in which women could work outside their own households while still being examples of purity and nurturance. As seen in the third paragraph in Lauer’s, The Feminization of Rhetorical and Composition Studies, Robert Connors argues… “These women were excluded from taking oral rhetoric and assigned to a more “appropriate” course called composition. He goes on to illustrate that this course gradually introduced important changes: moving from challenging and judgemantal student-teacher relationships to those that were nurturing and personalized” (pg.543). None the less, women had broken the barriers and joined a male dominated work-force. Lauer writes in the fifth paragraph, “The smart tactic for breaking into publication was to ridicule or demolish the interpretations of others, a practice true also in linguistics, where the structuralists were in mortal combat with the transformationalists. This was the academic context in which Rhetoric and Composition began as a scholarly field,” (pg.543). Beth Flynn states that the field feminized due to the changed view of how writers write and how it should be taught. I found it interseting that most of the theoritical work which composition theory had been created was developed by men. Lauer goes on to explain traits that both women and men have that are characterized as feminine. For example, one is cooperative, relational, interdependent, collaborative, caring for another’s development, and suffused with desire and joy. Lauer also spoke, “of actions that bear three of Holbrook’s features of women’s work: service-oriented, less well paid than men’s work, and often devalued” (pg.546). It is my opinion, that when society needed more women to enter teaching, the aspects of teaching that seemed appropriate to women were emphasized: nurturance and morality. When teaching emphasized discipline and national duty, more men became teachers. The feminization of rhetorics and composition studies was, therefore, created by both men and women. “Some theoligians and feminists are offering a new understanding of spirit, not as transcendent, not as the binary opposite of body, but as an insistence upon bodily dimension of knowledge and the consequent “attainment of a new capacity for ethical action-whether this is described in terms of love, compassion, altruism or care” (pg.549).