Zebroski and Williamson Response 9/9

With these readings, I was appreciative of the fact that they worked well as a supplement to the excerpts assigned last week from the David Crystal book. Both essays more than adequately addressed the concerns that we all brought up during previous class sessions. Confusion had surfaced as to the use value of the readings in terms of teaching actual writing courses. A related difficulty arose in not knowing what exactly should be taken away from the text. While the Crystal readings were interesting, these articles were *grounded*.

What I found most compelling in the excerpts from the Zebroski readings was his insistence on unifying course structure with a theme. My undergraduate composition courses were helplessly disorganized, complete with altogether unrelated topics for each essay assignment. I agree with Zebroski in the idea that, as an instructor, one must use the set-up of a course as a mirror for the coherence (and flexibility!!) asked of students' papers. The idea of a theme is great from a future-instructor's standpoint in that the course will be much more engaging and relevant to my interests. If I were to conduct my class in the style of some composition courses I have taken, then I would be bored to tears. Assignments which were typical in the general writing courses at my previous university included such prompts as If I could change one thing about campus it would be... and I (dis)agree with (particular policy) because of x... Nearly every student wrote about parking lots and dress codes respectively. I cannot imagine that the instructor was at all engaged in this coursework. Additionally, from the perspective of a student, it is very difficult to say something about such drab, randomized topics. And so: having a theme for a composition class seems like a great way to get all parties involved in the work being done.

On a similar note, I found several of Zebroski's assignment suggestions provocative. I will certainly be keeping them in mind when I start drafting my syllabus for the spring. Especially appealing is the ethnography paper; although, of course, it would have to be catered to the theme at hand (whatever that ends up being...). He notes that this assignment is successful largely because it requires the student to be active, and my hope is that this sort of activity will spur more interest in my class than the standard level of freshmen enthusiasm for required writing courses.

Williamson illuminates the part of class discussion we had last week regarding how dogmatic one should or should not be as a writing instructor when dealing with incorrect grammar. He argues that an inflexible approach to teaching writing which focuses on fixing grammatical errors thereby "stultifies the production of language" (13). That is, this approach does nothing to foster coherent communication. Content is forfeited for form, and one is left with perfectly polished sentences that don't say anything. While I may contradict the stance I expressed during discussion: I do believe that language cannot be taught as math. There are facets of it which may function as such, but this should not be the focus. Certainly grammar should serve to enhance clarity, and there is much for young writers (myself included, I'm sure) to learn about the potential grace of sentences. However, it is much more important for students' future academic and non-academic endeavors that they are able to communicate an idea rather than identify a dangling modifier. I am still sorting out how exactly one should/could strike the right balance (as is evident in my waffling).

Reading Response (9/9/2009)

1) Theory and Practice
“Theory” to Zebroski is a broad concept. According to him, it is not limited to “academic theories” approved by scholars. “But facts are always examined in light of some theory and therefore cannot be disentangled from philosophy,” He quotes from Vygotsky. Since first interested in philosophy in high school and studying philosophy in undergraduate, I also have understood theory in similar way. To perceive and interpret the world (I believe, life is the continuing process of perceiving and interpreting the world, an active or passive communication with the world), one unconsciously or consciously keeps utilizing her own lens. The lenses are sometimes such deep beliefs as religion, cultural code and moral sensibility. Other times, they are simply taste for fashion, food and art. In this sense, although many people complain about the impracticality of philosphy, actually no one can live without philosophy about the world and people. As one literary critic says, there is no such thing as “nontheoretical interpretation.” It is true of every interpretation, I believe.
I think it is so insightful for Zebroski to say, “Theory is practice, a practice of a particular kind, and practice is always theoretical. The question then is not whether we have a theory of composition, that is, a view, or better, a vision of our selves and our activity, but whether we are going to become conscious of our theory.” Therefore, as a teacher, one needs to make students become conscious of their own theories, their own point of views about the world and sophisticate them.

2) Theory and Writing
How can a teacher help students to think deeply about their own theories? In other words, how can a teacher lead students to do metathinking? There are perhaps several ways. However, among them, the best way to reflect on their own beliefs is to write about them. The author says, “The essays enact the process of theorizing and therefore are exploratory. Sometimes I have changed my mind about a key issue. Sometimes I have returned to positions that I had ealirer abandoned. That’s the way life, and the life of the mind, is.” Writing is really the process of theorizing, in other words, the process of thinking, not a fixed idea nor a ready-made product of thought. Writing is a flexible activity, moving ideas here and there, arranging them in logical ways.
Also, writing necessarily entails discussion whether it is a self-discussion as a kind of one’s thinking about thinking or a discussion with teachers and students. While participating in the discussion, students bump into different opinions and if interpreted in the author’s words, encounter with different “rhetorical universes.” In this sense, writing itself as an intersectional activity broadens students’ view of the world, enrich their contents and gives them a chance to reflect on their position about the given issue.

3) Theory and Metawriting
If writing is beneficial for metathinking as the process of sophisticating one’s theory, how is theory beneficial to writing process? Actually, this is the essential question that the author tries to answer through the text. Basically, as we discussed till now, theory is not separated from any practice. Therefore, it is also connected with writing process. When writing, everyone has her own theory, the strategies about how to write. For instance, she does brainstorming to find proper topic and subtopics, organize the structure logically and pick up appropriate words and expressions. However, many of us are not conscious of this theory just as we are not very conscious of our own deep beliefs and positions about the world. A teacher can help students to see this process of thinking and writing and sophisticate their writing strategies. Composing theory in this sense is a helpful guide to make students understand their own writing process better and sophisticate their writing theory, which they already have utilized consciously or unconsciously.

Reading Response Week 2

Meta Writing

As a writer I have had very few positive experiences in meta writing or in reflection about my writing. That may be due to the fact that I have little opportunity for reflection on the writing process.  Meta writing would have been an educational opportunity  after the 10th grade first large term paper in a leading up to the 11th grade paper. If I could have clearly defined what I learned about writing and the process that is behind it I may have seen the following high school papers as journeys and not destinations. Many students look forward to “ The End.” That end may be a certain word count or a page number.  They miss the bulk of the work in a blind rage to hurry through and get done and get something on the page. There should be a time to reflect on the work  in  the sense that  we ask ourselves “OK self, I just wrote that but what does it say?  What am i saying? Reflecting on the writing even now as I write this has given me time to let the discussions from earlier this week soak in and percolate in my mind. In class the idea of reflection  seemed like a pipe dream but now in actually trying it I feel it does have a place in our work .  In Zebrowski asking students there theory of writing. He walks a fine line from pushing students away and reaffirming those already engaged.  An important part is the framing of this question of theory is important it depends on the instructor to pose the question in a way that can be engaging and not threatening to the student. As we discussed in our small groups, Garth suggested that the initial meta writing assignment can serve as a reinforcement of already good writers and a deterrent to the weaker ones. This can be daunting even to skilled writers. But given this opportunity a student may learn why they have had trouble with the skill. I think and important idea to share with students is that writing is a a skill and we all have varying degrees of it but we can always get better and we can all get to a level of comfort with it. In my writing courses  I have never felt that I was learning a skill.  More often  I was being assessed on the skills I had earlier gained from other sources. And that the class time was not as important as the works produced no matter how they were produced. Now in my hyper awareness of writing  I can see that I had shortcut a lot of my lessons and short changed my self in not working through the slow stuff and leveling up correctly. 

Writing as a Process

 Using a wide sweeping theme in instruction, as Zebrowski discusses, can begin to show students that writing is a process that involves many small and large steps and not just the outcome, or the final written product. Other disciplines do not grade so heavily on what is the final project with out looking into the work that went into it. Rarely do we get graded on the end result with out seeing the working or the learning involved in it. Tests usually follow quizzes and regular assignments or home work. Writing should follow this same strategy where the homework can be directly involved with the final product that is to be graded by the instructor. Using the wide reaching theme in the class room can lead to this. Working in small steps towards  small and large goals can be an encouraging and rewarding-process of both student and instructor.  

 Group Work 

Group work has rarely ever been an enriching engaging experience for me as a student. In most group work the learning is overshadowed by the stress of having to be produced in a group. The work is overshadowed be the group. Emails, calls, and  problems (there is always a broken printer, a group member out of town or the illusive invisible group member who may or may not even exist in the plane of time and space).  The work seems to be just a a means to an ends to get the project over not something that is a shared learning experience among peers. Zebrowski's idea of class discussion and creating an environment where students can learn  and be comfortable with each other and the instructor and the work is a noble one.  But I am not sure group work is the facilitator of these successes as much as a capable instructor. Group work in other fields can have more tangible results.  Writing is always a solitary event even if surrounded by group members only one person at a time is doing the work of writing and putting the words to the page. Ideas can be shared and editing can be done. But in regards to writing as a group, I find it hard to believe that it can be possible let alone successful. Zebrwoski  quotes Vygotsky“ What the student can do in cooperation with others leads  what she will in the near future be able to do individually.” The close proximity to the work can lead to success in the work? The author has surely seen the phenomenon in his teaching I find it hard to believe. That being near good writing can lead to it in another.  I do though hope it is true. Otherwise we may only be leading horses to water.

Go Buckeyes. You can't spell suck without USC!  ( I thought blogs were supposed to be fun) 

Reading Response, 9/9 (despite the date posted)

I began this post as a comment on Liz’s, but as it ballooned more and more out of control, I decided to post it on its own merits. Any direct address of Liz or her article should be considered vestigial elements of its first conception, just like a child with a tail or six fingers.

That being said, I wanted to piggyback off some of the things that Liz said. First, yes, I agree with you Liz insofar as Zebroski makes a solid point in indicating the wide applicability and even necessity of theoretical practice* in an instructive setting. My understanding of this, flawed though it may be, is that composition instruction ultimately fails when it views the writing process merely as a means to an end; that is to say, when the classroom motto is "Write better so you get better grades." Zebroski's suggestion, and one that I imagine we all have to at least tip our hats to, is that the writing process is an ends unto itself. "Write better because it expands you as a human being" says the Zebroskian classroom.

I find this supremely enriching, in that it deviates from the perception of English instruction as a self-sustaining system of do's and do-not's. While the embittered practicalist in me must admit that, at some level, all writing instruction inevitably rests in some way on "Write this essay so you don't fail the next essay you're assigned," by hitching our wagon to the theory of communicative literary instruction our field becomes less of an abstraction and more of a critical device for personal exploration and expression.

Now, this is not to say that the selection from Zebroski is without its faults. Perhaps ironically, I find that his theoretical entreaties seem solid, but his suggestions for practical applications of these notions leave me somewhat cold. I disagree with Liz about the ethnographic writing suggestion, in that I think understanding the "otherness" of a foreign culture is entirely the point of an exercise like that. Like you said, of course, a great deal of the impact of the activity would depend on the approach of the instructor. David Crystal said that when "we learn a new lexeme, we always make at least two gains in precision" (198), and I think that that sentiment expands easily to the field of expressive writing as well. I think that an assignment that forces a student to expand their understanding of a new group will by rights refine the role co (eat your heart out, David Crystal's Chapter 48) plays in hir own groups. Naturally, it would be counter-productive to have this devolve into a "report on the inferior ______ people, by Garth, the far superior white male," but a reflective examination of one individual’s perhaps foreign way of life could be immensely formative as an experience for a young writer.

I find myself differing perhaps most substantially from Zebroski on the issue of his metawriting exercises. At the risk of whiplash as I pull a rather hasty about-face, this exercise seems too heavily steeped in theory without any practical applicability to provide immediate relevance to the students participating in it. While I certainly agree that composition needs to free itself from this requirement for immediate applicability, extended theoretical self-reflection, especially among students whose relationship with the writing process may be less than sterling, seems at risk of being overly contemplative at length. An easy fix to this would be to have a thematic link that draws more abstract assignments like this clearly and traceably towards more measurable goals and tasks, in such a way that the process of self-reflection can be seen more clearly as an essential element, but not entirety, of the writing process. Also, the use of themes will be a helpful defense if Zebroski happens to visit your classroom and takes issue with your interpretation of his work.

To touch briefly on the Williamson reading, I find it certainly to be an appropriate supplement to Zebroski’s writing, though it suffers some similar shortcomings. Where is the line drawn between theoretical integrity and practical necessity? To tie more directly to the course material, what does Williamson propose we as teachers do about “ain’t”? If it is only being excluded from academic work because it’s been identified as a stigmatized form for that context, what will be the effect when that error ceases to be corrected? Now, this is not to say that I am necessarily against relaxing our grip on this notion of “correct” English, but there are certainly a fair number of conventions expected of academic speech that, like panda bears, will disappear if we stop forcibly reproducing them. I ‘m not sure if Williamson’s work is prepared to stand up to the professional repercussions it seems to be presenting here. Its wholesale adoption by the community at large would be nothing short of revolutionary. How artificial do we want professional language to sound? More directly, if we were to relax our grip on the reins of the language, how sure are we that that ain’t a good thing?

* Of course, if theory, like Zebroski tells us, "is practice," perhaps I'm repeating myself by saying "practice practice.**

** Then again, maybe the real time waster is these worthless footnotes. Sorry guys.

Reading Respose

Composing Theory: How Theory Can (and Can't) Help the Writing Teacher

It was very refreshing to read an essay that was brave enough to tackle both theory and practice and the relationship between them. It seems that many writings that I have been exposed to take very solid stances. The very title of this essay leaves room for some ambiguity which I think is necessary in an environment as fluid and changing as the college classroom.

The first part of this essay that I found both helpful and applicable to my future classroom experiences was his explanation of the very political nature of linguistics. I have definitely been in classrooms where “error policing” took center stage and was usually miserable in such classes. I like how he explains the ways that teachers fall into such habits because of a lack of time, as well as the very political backlash in many institutions against theory. For reasons of pragmatism, I can understand why chaotic theories such as Vygotsky's could cause some ripples, however I like his idea of generating response as opposed to strict lecutre and error correction.

I had some difficulty grasping the notion of intersectionality, mainly because I am unclear exactly what environment these “rhetorical universes intersect.” I'm assuming that this is a general statement that includes human speech, writing, blogging and any other form of communication that can be measured to a certain extent. I definitely agree with him that, because in reality writing and thought are not 'linear', we shouldn't try to follow them as if they were. As I mentioned before this does pose some potential pitfalls when it comes to assessment or, depending on the classroom (specifically his mention of ethnographic writing), the issue of fairness. However, the way he compartmentalizes the different intersections of composing makes things a little more manageable.

Creating the Introductory College Composition Course

I agree with Zebroski's ambiguous take on theory. Far too often I think some theorists ignore practice either because practice proves the theory wrong, or the likelier case, the practice doesn't always return consistent results. I am glad that Zebroski does not seem to fear this and even goes as far as to say that “theory is practice.” Out of all the useful points he mentions about theory, I think the most helpful is the relinquishment of control that he mentions. If I am understanding him correctly, he is referring to a classroom environment where answers and understanding are elicited from the students rather than imparted to them from the teacher.

When Zebroski discusses “Assumptions,” I have a difficult time wrapping my head around what exactly he means by 'theory.' What I take from this section is that these Vygotskian assumptions are rooted in the experiential process of learning writing. In other words, an instructor should have a subtle theme that can help elicit response from the students without directing them or limiting them.

I like the idea of introducing a theme into the class. While some might say that this is limiting, I think that (when not used in the extreme as Zebroski mentions) a theme can actually elicit much deeper and well thought out responses than a class that lacks a structure entirely. By giving the class a structure an instructor challenges the students to explore a somewhat limited area as in depth as possible. I think that this is a much better method than having an open ended class where you hardly scratch the surface on most of the issues the class is writing about.

I think Zebroski's notion of metawriting is an interesting one. In my years in school I think I was only ever asked to do this once. It was during finals week and at that point I didn't feel that it was very helpful. I think Zebroski's method of having them reflect in the beginning would be much more helpful. Another one of his methods that I find very, very appealing is establishing a dialogue on student papers. I know that very often students do not read the comments and seldom respond to them unless it is over a grade dispute. By having them respond to correction or comments, I would hope to give them a more critical eye for their own work by actually having them think about the comments that have been made.

The only point that Zebroski makes that I don't fully agree with is his use of ethnographic writing. I like the idea of exposing students to an unfamiliar culture or people, but I think that this also can lead to the students 'othering' another culture. I think this all depends on the way the instructor handles the methodology for this excersize. Depending on the age of the students, doing research and reporting about a different class level might be a baby step towards an ethnography. This way they would learn the nuances that make up a 'group' of people by understanding class within their own culture first.

I like how Zebroski links group work back to American culture. He says that our “competitive culture militates against this kind of sharing.” In some cases, I think that group work flares up individualism, especially where a grade is involved. I would have liked him to more clearly state what he means by group work. I think that the size of the group determines a lot, as does the method of assessment. I believe that he is correct in his observation that students seem invigorated and respond better, but I would like him to be more critical of the reasons for this. Perhaps writing appears better after group work because a pecking order of talent has been established within the group and the results are the work of just one or two people. Another probable reason for the positive responses could be because the students have finally had a chance to relax and talk to each other.

In all I agree with most of Zebroski's arguments and suggestions, but I do think that he needs to give more specific examples in some cases.

Common Sense Meets Research: The Debate Over Grammar Instruction in Composition Instruction

This discussion of grammar correction is one that I am familiar with from my ESL classes. I fully agree with Williamson's findings about the distraction and anxiety that strict grammatical correction causes. In the ESL classroom, the generation of speech or writing is far more important than having perfect grammar. I found that many students were ashamed of their poor grammar and this, not a lack of vocabulary or ability, is what prevented them from actively engaging in class discussion or even friendly talk outside of class.

The anecdote that Williamson gives at the beginning of this essay is a very appropriate one. When he goes on to wonder about why this very flawed method of grammar instruction is still in use, I think that the teacher's answer is the most fitting one: previous generations of instructors feel that it is a huge deviation to not teach grammar because that is how they learned. I was taught Chomsky's generative grammar model and found it to be very interesting, but I could not apply it in any of my ESL classes because these students had already been exposed to other methods.

I find Williamson's argument that when we are corrected, we only correct ourselves in certain contexts, to be very interesting and important. This is something that I never thought of before, but it makes complete sense.

As Williamson mentions, a shift in teaching methodology away from grammar correction is sure to be slow in coming. I think this is one of the more difficult issues a teacher will face if he or she wants to move away from traditional models in his or her classroom. Even if an individual instructor is very learned in these theories and has a very good method worked out, he or she still has to contend with tradition and even student confusion. A student might feel comfortable receiving error correction and might even come to rely on it. Although a switch to a more theoretical and more helpful model of instruction could be beneficial in the long run, a student might feel anxious over such a switch. This is the one point that Williamson doesn't really seem to account for. I think that the best way to handle this is to explain to a certain extent, your teaching methodology to the students. I have been in classrooms where teachers have strayed from tradition and I can clearly remember many students getting angry and anxious over it. However, when a teacher explains why he or she is teaching differently than other instructors it not only shows the students that you think they are intelligent enough to grasp your methodology, but that you have given real thought and care to how much they actually learn.

--Liz

Reading Response for 9-9-09

I found this week’s reading assignments interesting for they discuss areas of the classroom that form a relative groundwork for what we do as teachers. The first few chapters of Zebroski’s book were the most engaging, as I look forward to teaching college writing, even more so creative writing, in the university’s classrooms. His discussion of writing theory, a facet I usually regard with displeasure, was informative because he provided his readers with samples of syllabi and classroom activities that proved his points while providing open-ended questions for later thought. Zebroski is right on the money when he says that theory is practice. Truly, one cannot exist without the other. Like any textual theory, it means nothing and cannot be applied without actual writing on which to base assumptions and analysis. Our best examples of theory, its application, and its on-going evolutionary process, is the writing of our students. Their work is the evidence on which our teaching rests.
I especially enjoyed the journal responses. I felt that their intent might be a bit too in depth or abstract for freshmen to understand, although could be applied later in the course to shine a light on what students have trouble grasping. My first journal assignment would be for my students to write about how and what they were taught about writing in school, and then we could discuss their own personal writing theories later on as they pertain to our class. After reading over Zebroski’s activity examples and thinking about their application, I’m pretty sure I could modify and use these examples to coax my own teaching process along as I see fit. Some of them, however again might be a bit too in depth. Ethnographic writing, while as great tool, is a very difficult writing style if you have not done it before. I had to do so in my first college writing class and had trouble with it from the start. Yet, as I am not in his class and therefore do not know the context in which he’s placing these lessons or can see his teaching style, I have no idea how he handles such pupil difficulty person by person.
In dealing with his actual thesis, I agree with Zebroski when he says that theory does not discipline writing, but instead writing controls theoretical studies as well as composition. I’ve taken many writing classes in which I was made to believe that my writing had to fit certain guidelines within a specific theory, or else it may fail altogether. I saw even more of this instruction, and its effects on students, while working at the Writing Commons.
Coming out of high school, freshmen really are the wide-eyed, clueless (not in a bad way) deer-in-the-headlights most of us portray them to be, at least academically. Most high schools do not provide them with the critical adaptation skills needed to merge into collegiate academia. In the classroom, they do not need to have teachers and instructors pigeonholing them into any theories, especially with something as delicate and personal as writing. While tutoring, I observed how students were graded on the correctness of their writing, as if simply putting coherent sentences together that were grammatically and structurally correct made them good writers. Those that could not, even though I knew their work’s intent and message, viewed themselves as some do towards others who use words like ‘ain’t’. They acted as if they were failures, true inbreeds, with no rational concept of the English language or hope of ever discovering all its ins and outs without some kind of excruciating pain. Staring at their papers with extreme terror, the page, their text, controlled them, not the other way around as it should be. They knew what they wanted to say, but felt they lacked the tools to express it because their style did not fit the requirements taught to them in class. Simply, they had not yet been given the tools in which to control their words, nor the teaching that enables them to believe that they can.
I will encourage my students to look at their writing, to assess what and how they communicate, and see if they fit into any theory we may cover in class. Perhaps they can adopt certain parts of theories for themselves and their writing, perhaps not. They do not have to. The most important lesson they need to learn, and teachers need to stress, is that writing is not a series of parts and pieces that need to be academically correct to be understood. Instead, students need to learn the importance of their ability to communicate and the doors with which that unique ability can open.
Michael Williamson’s article sparked my interest from the outset. I find grammar to be one of the most boring subjects on the planet, let alone one to have to sit through in the classroom when it’s a nice day outside (for me, even a rainy, snowy day). I agree with Williamson when he says that teaching grammar, or having correct grammar, does not necessarily translate to great writing. Again, I’ll draw on my experience at the Writing Commons. I’ve seen all kinds of papers from every kind of student, undergrad to graduate to transfer to ESL. One student came who had a phenomenally written paper. Her sentences were correct, snazzy; she manipulated the language like a pro. The only problem was her paper had nothing to say. Yet, as most students were required to come to the WC, this student stated that her professor only made it optional for her because of the quality of her writing. Conversely, I tutored another student whose grammar was atrocious, an amalgamation of clauses, run-ons, and fragments. His paper, though poorly grade by his professor, contained an insight and passion for his subject that I had not expected when he came to our offices. He had more to say in a single sentence than the girl with great grammar had to say in her whole paper.
Yet, I feel that Williamson ignores an important aspect of his own schooling experience and writing. While we all hated grammar instruction, especially its constant repetition and correction, a part of that made us good writers. I can complain all I want about it, but the bottom line is without that structure I might not understand the putting together the English language puzzle to accurately communicate with others through my writing. Williamson is taking a hard line here. He’s right in one aspect, but also ignoring a crucial piece of evidence against him: himself. I know that grammar instruction, perhaps even writing in general, will never be fully understood. As Zebroski said, it is an entity that interacts with context, the individual, and society. I just felt that Williamson’s article did not come to the sort of definite conclusion, one with ample research and facts to back it up based on his views that I expected at his article’s outset. I had the same problem with Zebroski, as I wanted him to discuss some theories and examples that were opposite of his, to let the reader decide what is best by allowing them to consider both sides. Either way, problems or not, both of these articles provided me with critical thought about what I will teach in my classroom and how.

reading reflection for 9-9-09

As someone who is only now dipping my toes into the many theoretical approaches to teaching English, I’ve often found discussions of theory to be intimidating and overwhelming, as if this area will expose my lack of familiarity with the field and my deficit of expertise. The two readings from Zebroski helped allay some of my fears, as he frames the issue of learning and employing theory as something that’s organic and altogether implicit in the act of teaching, whether or not one can articulate one’s perspective. Though I’ve often perceived theory as being impractical and often divorced from the actual realities of the classroom, the idea of theory and practice being “answerable” to each other makes perfect sense, and Zebroski’s call that teachers be more conscious of their theoretical biases and how they inform the classroom process seems obvious (though I admittedly hadn’t given it much thought). Further, presenting composition as the “intersection of context, text, self, and society,” is helpful is conceptualizing an approach to engaging students where they are when they enter the class and how to keep them engaged throughout the course.

Zebroski does well to move from the theoretical to the practical in his presentation of various curriculum ideas is instructive for developing a course that could effectively serve a wide range of students. In particular, the idea of constructing a course around a particular theme is intriguing, though I can imagine the difficulty in picking a topic that isn’t too narrow or stifling to creative thought. Though the approach in selecting a topic would be to choose something that would be universal enough that every student would have some investment in the discussion, I fear that some students could receive a topic such a “work” or “education” with indifference and then be tied to it throughout the semester. Could a single course allow students to pick from multiple areas of focus and then allow those students to work in smaller groups of individuals who have chosen that same topic? Regardless of the focus, Zebroski’s emphasis on metawriting techniques seems, in theory, to be something that would force writers to be more conscious of their process and what they think is successful, and his idea of having writers respond to teacher comments seems like a good way of engaging a student and teacher in the act of actively collaborating in the compositional process.

Zebroski’s exploration of the ethnography assignment seems like an excellent way of drawing a writer into a greater awareness of his or her surrounding community and how one can be both a participant and observer. I don’t doubt his findings that students receive this assignment favorably, though his suggestion that they need to spend five to ten hours a week outside of class working on the assignment seems likely to meet resistance. Further, having gone to a small college in a rural area, I wonder if some colleges would be limited in their ability to provide such cross-cultural opportunities.

Additionally, Zebroski’s discussion of the using the group as a central part of the learning process strikes a chord with me, as I saw firsthand how a group dynamic can create its own energy and provide learning opportunities that are impossible in situations where a teacher is solely directing the flow of energy. From my experience, this is a delicate and often incomprehensible process, and I can relate to the mystery that Zebroski says he has experiencing when a group congeals and finds its own collaborative spirit halfway through a semester.

Finally, Williamson’s exploration of language and grammar acquisition is surprising but makes sense from my experience. From what I recall, it seems that I acquired my understanding of proper grammar and speech from listening to my parents speak and through imitating the books that I had read. Interestingly, I know that neither of my parents were raised by parents who used proper grammar, so it seems to me that they must have picked this up later, probably through their experiences reading and with higher education. Still, I know that both of them speak with a Western Pennsylvanian dialect (as I do, at times), so I can see Williamson’s argument from a few different perspectives.