Weekly Response: Bean's "Using Rubrics to Develop and Apply Grading Criteria"

This was a great reading. I'll respond to it with my own experiences with holistic grading, norming sessions, and rubrics.

When Bean talked about the controversy surrounding what professors actually want, it reminded me of some of the other articles we read about evaluating student writing. First, we need to decide what wer're looking for: voice, organization, content, grammar and spelling...? 

Weekly Response: Matsuda's "Teaching Composition in the Multi Lingual World"

Matsuda discusses the role of second language writing in composition studies. He realizes that teaching English in college continues to evolve as student populations change, and he talks about how writing for ESL is separated from writing for native speakers, which may not be the correct choice. Then he says the "myth of linguistic homogeneity" (37) has not been properly addressed among those who teach writing to first language speakers.

Second language writing (L2 Writing) "refers to writing in any language that the writer did not grow up with, including the third, fourth, fifth language, and so on." (38). There are other acronyms too, such as ESL, ESOL, and ELL. All seem to carry a stigma. Generation 1.5 is a new label for ELL who are not foreign.

Weekly Response: Harris & Silva's "Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options"

The article "Tutoring ESL Students" came at a great time. The Writing Center staff and ESL Department at NJIT just held a seminar on the same topic! It was interesting to see which topics seemed to be universal concerns. Deciding between global and local problems in students' writing was discussed. Dealing with content before grammar was also covered. There was a lengthy discussion in the seminar and the article about how ESL students often want an editor and/or want to focus on "correctness" and rules. It makes sense. That's what I want when I write in a foreign language. I am usually confident in my ideas, but I'm not sure if I expressed them correctly and clearly for a native language reader to understand my meaning as I intend it to be understood.

Final Project: Theme/Title

Browsing over what Colin and Laura wrote, I agree that Writing Matters is a great title. It is broad enough to encompass each of our individual projects, but focused enough to explain what we are doing. I'll test it against the other choices.

Writing Matters vs. Finding Your Voice: The two titles are similar in that they both imply that we are all looking for what matters individually to each of us and how to use writing to express it. However, using the word "voice" seems to imply "voice" or "style" in writing, which isn't really what we were shooting for. It also seems to imply we were silent until we "found" something, which I don't really agree with.
My verdict: Writing Matters wins.

Writing Matters vs. That Writing Moment: Writing Matters can refer to why writing is important, or it can refer to different matters, subjects, situations, in which writing is used and valued. The double entendre is cool. That Writing Moment is too narrow (just one moment!), and doesn't include the various angles and situations that Writing Matters allows.
My verdict: Writing Matters wins.

Writing Matters vs. Why I Write: I'm not sure any of us actually included Why I Write as an option. I think it made the list because Dr. Zamora asked the group a question about our theme and we were not clear enough with our answer. (A misunderstanding?) I think our vignettes are pretty diverse and don't necessarily respond to the question "why I write." If we are not all focusing on the answer to that question in our vignettes, then we shouldn't use Why I Write as our title/theme. If we are, then Why I Write should stay on the table. Personally, I am not trying to answer that question, but I could change direction if that's what the group decides.
My verdict: I prefer Writing Matters but would defer to the group's decision if Why I Write explains everyone else's intentions.

Weekly Response: Murray's "Teach the Motivating Force of Revision"

Donald Murray is at it again. He is asking professors to teach students the joy and adventure of revising. He wants students to find new ideas and interests through their writing. They should move through meaning to discover what they truly want to say.

I get the point of his article, but it seems like it would work so much better in a creative writing setting than in my FYW classes. Also, freshmen definitely think that any required revision means they did a poor job on the first draft. It's a punishment, or at best a request for editing "mistakes."

Reflection: Peer Response Assignment, Jaxon Style

We tried the peer review in class today based on Jaxon's article. Students brought in two copies of their research proposals. I had students write memos to peers on the back of their papers. That took about 25 minutes in the early class and only about 15 in the later class. Then, I made sure they exchanged papers with someone they don't sit near, because we have done some peer editing before, and I didn't want them going to the same folks each time.

I explained that the proposal isn't just a preliminary document to the research paper, but an important stand-alone genre. Then I offered lots of points for the peer feedback. I didn't, as Jaxon suggested, let them bring the assignment home. There was plenty of time in class.

Weekly Response: Sommers's "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers"

Nancy Sommers, in her essay "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers" distinguishes between the linear nature of speech and the recursive nature of writing. She is uncomfortable with writing and revision strategies that are linear and stage-based, putting revision somewhere at the end of the process.  Revision must permeate the entire process.

She explains that speech cannot be revised, only added to as an afterthought.

The spoken word cannot be revised. The possibility of revision distinguishes the written text from speech.  In fact, according to Bathes, this is the essential difference between writing and speaking. (379)

Sommers conducted a case study to find out exactly what the students do to revise papers. It seems they focus on revision as wordsmithing at the end of a writing process, once they feel their writing is "finished." Concerns were finding the "right" word, avoiding repetition, and checking for mechanical errors. There was no reworking of theme, concepts, voice, or order. The students don't know how to revise; therefore, they try to follow the "rules" they've been taught.

The experienced adult writers, on the other hand, re-envisioned their argument and their form or framework, and considering their readers. Through this process they create meaning. Revision occurs throughout their writing and is not done only at the end. Their process is not linear but a series of different cycles, and they are not primarily wordsmithing. They are adding, deleting, and reordering sentences.

Sommers hopes that students will learn to revise by understanding the opportunities and possibilities that writing offers as opposed to speech: the advantage of revision.