Kimberly+Joki

Kimberly Joki Wendt English 210


 * 06 September 2007**

As a non-English major nor a student concentrated in composition, the impact of Maxine Hairston's observations may be different for me than for others—then again, maybe not. My reaction to "The Winds of Change" could be likened to a ok-so-that-is-what-is happening experience. I would not go so far as to say that the piece flipped the 60-watt halogen on; it may have lit a candle. **//Nice analogy.//** The article allowed me to reflect and analyze my expereinces and a writer and student of writing.

Throughout my education, writing has been mandated and, though I chose a non-language field, the nature of my work is and will forever remain dependent on writing. That said,on some neutral plane of consciousness, I recognized a friction between writing as I had been taught and writing as I wanted to be taught (though the distinction was definitely not entirely clear at the time). In fact, before reading this article, my thoughts on writing had been veiled to the extent that I couldn't decide if I would going to Writing Hell for lack of adherence to the traditional prescription (Writing Hell being a stagnancy in my compositional development **//Hmm--hell as a place of stagnation.//**). Now, however, some of the veils have been lifted, and it is clear that I will be leaving Purgatory soon.

As I read this piece, I began pinpointing when in my life I had been effected by the traditional paradigm and the emerging paradigm. I think my indoctrination to the traditional thought began in my early childhood with my mother, an English major and pseudo-grammarian with a flair for conforming to linguistic regulations. She taught me, molded me and sculpted me. Being type-A myself, I didn't necessarily mind all the structure. It was a comfort except when I actually had to utilize that structure to write. Loyal to my default person, I tried stringently to conform. My mother has told me a story of how, when simple writing assignments had been given in the 1st and 2nd grades, I would stay in from recess to meticulously perfect my words. Apparently, my teacher began giving me gold stars for //leaving// impurities. **//Sounds like your teacher just wanted you to lighten up and go play!//** Regardless, as my writing matured, I was hindered fundamentally by a conflict between the product-focused methods of my mother and my more natural tendencies.

I ferociously maintained a structured-writing mentality until (about) my sophomore year in high school. Using the //Write for College Handbook//, I religiously //tried// to follow the I-Search Paper recipe. But, despite my greatest attempts, 3 cups of bibliographic information, 1/4 pound of full outline and a sprinkle of numerically perfect organization did not satisfy my standards for writing AND I HATED WRITING THIS WAY. **//Good--you should hate it. I think that's why so many students hate writing overall--they just never get a chance to see how fun it can be (fun, of course, used loosely)//** I hated (still hate) outlines. I'm lucky if I know where I am going to end up with a paper; how am I supposed to write an accurate outline, revise, bolster, and rewrite said outline when I have no idea what I am going to write yet? **//Exactly--outlines are great to use when you're done with a draft as an organizing tool.//** (This is why, when I have to write an outline, I commonly do not have conclusions. I have a strong intro with thesis, but never conclusions). Generally, I //have// to write to sort my words and thoughts. I can't diagram. This struggle reflects Hairston's comments regarding the development of ideas through writing. Ideas initiate writing and writing facilitates continued development of concepts. **//This is one of the problems, too, with a process paradigm: everyone's writing process is so different and so messy that it's near impossible to teach--just gotta let 'em write.//**

When I had to prepare my ideas BEFORE I wrote, I came to an impasse. By following the rules, I would get an A, but my writing would be shit; or I could do it my way and feel a little better about my work. I did both. (Please remember that I was, in no way, consciously deciding these things, as I was extremely unaware of any real division). It wasn't until I came to Alma and had Mrs. Cubberley that I realized //my// way of writing was easier for the audience to read, more interesting and noteably better. And, with feedback from other professors, I know my writing is growing. I have found a tempered mix of rules (to satisfy the traditionalists) and personal loyalty. By rejecting some of the impositions of the product-oriented writing process and embracing what is classified as process-oriented techniques, I have realized one of the most fiundamental things to successful writing—I can write. **//Yes, you can. and you could before--but you never felt it was fun or a privilege or even a learning tool--it was drudgery. Blech.//**

Hairston's piece is provocative. It invoked a train of thought which helped me to recognize my writing development, a development very much effected by shifting paradigms. While reading I had a few questions :

1) Is it possible that the answer is a mix of the two paradigms? Hairston references this at the end of the article. I wonder if this new paradigm need retain some of the old regardless of the development of the emerging. . .**//Do you see this now after reading the post-process piece?//**

2) If people seem so inherently determined to write as a process (references to new college students, writers reading the article thinking "duh" it is a process), how has the traditional method proven so effective for some, and indeed many, for years? //**We talked about some of this in class, about how the war affected things to such a great extent in the academic world. Those who used to be in higher education were only the privileged, academic types--the average person never went to school. After the war, with open-door policies, higher ed had a new problem: they had to teach to all kinds of students, not just one kind. Make sense?**//

3) Now 20 years after the piece was written, have we completed the shift? Are we any farther than when Hairston wrote? //**How would you answer this question now?**//


 * 10 September 2007**

The concepts presented in Paul Kei Matsuda's "Process and Post-Process: A Discursive History" aim to warn writing educators of the dangers of classifying writing pedagogies into eras. By categorizing certain durations of compositional history as //current-traditional rhetoric, process,// or //post-process//, Matsuda cautions that the complexity of pedagogical perspectives is oversimplified. This is of particular concern within the realm of second language writing as there has been a multiplicity of competing perspectives in process pedagogy to the extent that one could not (technically) classify process in L2 writing as a true paradigm. This of course raises issues of whether the mass should be discussing the post-process era within the field of L2.

While I agree that categories draw away from the many perspectives of composition, I do not think that a lack of categories would serve any purpose. **//What purpose, if any, do these categories serve? Do you see any reasons for them? They exist in every field for every era--why do you think this is?//** Matsuda raises important points regarding the timing of process-oriented thought and argues that the classification of history into grammatical eras hinders the understanding of differences within the compositional field. However, I struggle to comprehend why this matters within the scope of L2 writing or within the broader field of composition studies.

These categorical labels—current-traditional, process, and post-process—designate time frames for shifting currents in composition studies. These frames provide reference to a prevailing pedagogy, but hardly reference to an ultimate and universal perspective. I doubt many historians would say that the superstitious nature of the Dark Ages was resolute truth; there were, of course, those who disagreed and thought beyond the realm of prevailing consciousness. **//Good connection here.//** Such is true within the sphere of what has been deemed the current-traditional paradigm. There were inevitably those who went against the wind; Matsuda names Charles C. Fries and Sterling Andrus Leonard as examples of those who, during the current-traditional period, charted the beginnings of the process movement(68). Such is true within the process paradigm (though, these are marked by variations on a familiar theme rather than transformational thought)(78).

I think it is natural for the human mind to divide and categorize. It serves to set some general background for concepts that are always complex and difficult to understand. The point of labels and categories //is// to simplify. //**yes.**// Matsuda cautions that one should be careful not to think too generally about any of the given compositional eras, but I believe that //is// the purpose of having the label. Within a phylum there are genii; within genii there are species. One should not be surprised—I daresay—one should expect to have variances within the broader spectrum of pedagogy (as evident by the various foci that developed within the L2 field)(78). I doubt any person seriously considers these classifications to be absolute.**//An excellent point. It's like saying that miniskirts are in fashion and assuming that EVERYONE is wearing a miniskirt during the time.//**

1. Why is Matsuda so concerned with informing people of the history of compositional thought?

2. To clarify, if we can, what actually //is// "post-process"? According to Matsuda, it is a "misnomer"(78), what progression of thought could possible classify as post-process?

3. Why is there a division between L2 and mainstream composition studies? What is the benefit of differing approaches? **//We discussed this in class--ESL students have very different needs and the focus is on grammar and immersion.//**


 * 12 September 2007**

Though I have not contemplated to any great extent on education and the processes of education, my current circumstances dictate that I must consider effective education and its achievement. Through the grand design of the universe, various components within my life are flowing together, complementing one another. As an intern for the Executive Office of Governor Granholm, I am currently investigating and learning the Education Policy of State and Federal Governments. Working with Governor Granholm's Education Policy Advisor, Sue Carnell, I have been pushed to immerse myself in the world of education and education policy. The Governor's plan to revitalize Michigan's economy is founded on the development of a world-class education system that will attract and create a world-class workforce. **//Man, wouldn't that be nice?//** That said, the Governor's plan demands rigorous overhaul of academic standards in core subjects and predicates its success on the effectiveness of educators and skilled trainers. Underlying what has been a crash course in education policy and economic reconstruction I have noticed that there is— intrinsically—a need to adopt a model of learning that ensures quality education. As the questions of "what?" and "how?" began to seep into my conciousness, Brian Cambourne's "Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry" seeped into my life. This piece has vigorously reinforced my beliefs that //everyone// can learn challenging material well. **//Send this piece to everyone in Granholm's office, make them read it, and have them change all of educational policy to fit this framework. Michigan will then have a "world-class education system"! Good luck on that...//**

With much thanks to my parents, I have long held that the human capacity for learning is much greater than what humans credit to each other. Teachers and parents sometimes doubt a child's capacity to obtain, utilize and retain information; therefore, they are not surprised when a child is a poor learner. This phenomenon is analogous to a trite phrase: you get what you give. Although, commonly construed differently, this saying applies in more abstract ways as well. For example, when a parent expects a child to learn to read before second grade, the child generally will learn to read before the second grade. Parents, teachers and other societal factors determine the standards we hold for learning. In my opinion, these standards are advertently and inadvertently set below potential. **//Conversely, if they don't expect them to read till the fifth grade, they probably won't learn till the fifth grade. Eek.//**

These low standards are unconciously determined by a variety of factors. What I think Cambourne alludes to in his article is that these insufficient standards are partly derived from the manner in which we teach. Parents who have been taught and failed to learn to read within the traditional pedogogy (habit formation, stimulus-response, association, and dictated learning (2)), will translate those negative feelings to their children, sometimes through the expectations they hold. This cyclical issue is, what I believe, Cambourne is beginning to break down by proposing an approach that fosters learning in a more natural way.

Cambourne's decision to analyze language aquistion for a learning model is brilliant. **//Not just brilliant, but so incredibly sensible. Doesn't it make you wonder why no one ever really thought of this or did this research before?//** It is true that this example could not be much closer to a perfect representation of the manners people acquire information. The model Cambourne developed includes immersion, demonstration, engagement, expectations, responsibility, approxiamations, employment, and response (3-4). Comparatively his model appears more complex and demanding when looking point for point. However, when looking at the model in the context of language aquistion and aquistion of many social behaviors, it becomes painfully clear that such a model embraces natural human tendency for learning.

If we, as a society, were to make a substantial transformation in education thought, it should be something similar to what Cambourne presents. And, while standards should and could be set higher in policy, what makes the real difference in learning are the expectations that valuable figures hold—codified or not. Considering the insight Cambourne provides in what inspires truly transformational learning for all students, our Education policy should do so much more than spewing paper regulations about increased standards. **//To say the least.//** Many more problems within our education system (e.g. student retention, information retention, graduation rates, drop-out rates and standards) could potentially all be remedied by a fundamental shift in our educational doctrine. Via Cambourne's methods students could learn to love and appreciate learning. This concept alone would solve the above-listed problems. Cambourne's model should be applied beyond literacy learning. **//You've got your toe in the door...//**

1) What effects can be forseen if this model were broadly applied to all subjects? Would learning improve in all areas?

2) Considering the discussion of paradigm shifts within our last two readings, is this model becoming more trendy and/or marking the beginning of a potential shift in educational understanding?

3)On a personal, one-to-one level, how does one facilitate a nonthreatening and accepting responses between strangers (i.e. for skeptical writing center students)? How does one provide response that is constructive and minimizes chance for the response to be misconstrued as condescending?