Reticent Writing, Reading, and Speaking

It was truly a pleasure having Dr. Burns sit in on class this week and, if only for a brief moment, answer some of our blogging questions.
Another pleasure was hearing from other groups on their speech topics, and taking notes to further my own pedagogy statement. One element of the reticent writer section that I hadn't thought much about was the rules of cultures and abilities. Pierre Bourdieu makes the claim that there are certain rules and there have to be initiations to be able to speak certain ways. Is this the same for writing?
In reading the Blair article by Lois Agnew (I couldn't speak in class so I read while my students worked), Agnew makes the claim from Horner that "Written and oral skills were taught together throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in British Universities. 'instruction in one reinforcing instruction in the other" (28). We have strayed from this. Reticent writers, if I had to guess, are probably reticent speakers and readers. To fix this, educators will need to begin having students compose for oral presentation.
Something to think about in pedagogy: how often do we make students read aloud, or are we worried we will embarrass students? What is more important: teaching or building self esteem? I'm going with teaching, but I may be wrong.

Lockeing it down!

The presentations this week were very efficient and great for the purpose of covering a great deal of rhetoric in a small period of time. The presentation that Johanna gave on Vico was especially good as I wanted to understand more about his three stages of "nature, manners, law and the government: the ages of Gods, Heroes, and Man" (Maiullari 2). I do, however, see how another one of our rhetoricians, Locke, and Vico would have absolutely gone to battle over the ideas of human knowledge according to the ages, and Locke's "blank slate" ideal.

According to Vico, humans are predisposed to a particular knowledge and we can only rarely access the knowledge of the heroes. How then, do heroes become heroes? Are they predisposed to a different realm of understanding? Did Odysseus know more than the average human, and can he then access the knowledge of the Gods on rare occasion? We are privy to certain information just because of our birth. Knowledge such as survival, reproduction, and defense is in my mind, bred into our brains, and it is built upon through experience.

Locke believed that humans were born with a blank slate and everything we learned was through experience. If this is the case, then how do people who have never been stuck in the snow come out alive? There has to be some predisposed knowledge on survival. What about someone who has never fought. I, for one, have not been in a fight, but my first human instinct is to cover my pretty face and protect my vital organs from hits. Is there an experience that teaches us this? According to Locke, we would use our senses to determine these reactions. I, personally, would prefer to avoid getting punched before deciding whether or not to experience it again.

We are privy to certain information because of our nature, and we are then supposed to build on this base as we go -- through reflection? Through the senses? I'm not sure how we all grow in our knowledge base, but we surely do. We do, however need to be wise in our learning because, according to both, wisdom is key in obtaining knowledge.

Unless of course you use a syllogism...

Hey kids, this school thing is TOUGH! Get used to it!

In class we spent a good deal of time discussing rhetoric in research and reasoning behind the essential lack of primary sources. After coupling the Enos article with the Moss article, I have more than realized that our students (and ourselves as students) are relying on computers and their "magic" too much. And I truthfully believe computers are magic -- I have NO idea how they work, all I know is they are amazing.
Corbett is convinced that composition teachers are "much more sophisticated that teachers of composition were even fifteen years ago" (45). The term "sophisticated" makes me wonder -- what is sophistication exactly? Intellectually appealing is one definition, but I highly doubt we are being judged on how intellectually appealing we are. The most likely definition he is refering to is to be ahead in development. But, he continues to examine how far we've come in sophistication...whatever that is.
He touches on computers and their lack of logic and inability to utilize topoi. By spending time analyzing this sophistication that we have as composition teachers and allowing more of our time to be used teaching and acting on different topoi through logical formats, we can turn the talk of rhetoric into action. Take away the computer for an assginment -- see what happens. It's kind of fun!
In this article he also makes the observation that computers cannot analyze the written letter B and recognize that it is a part of the alphabet. This is out of date.
So, in order to better teach our students, they need to analyze more primary sources and find a place to rhetorize, or, as Dr. Eskew and Kenneth Burke would say, find a place to "put in their oar."

Easy reading is damn hard writing. ~Nathaniel Hawthorne

The essay by Rohman and Wlecke begins wonderfully with what is perceived as the "problem" with educating English composition. The problem boils down to one word for these two scholars and that is "Quality" (216).
The quality in educating students in composition has been waning since the beginning of composition studies, and will continue to be a topic of discussion as long as it exists (ideally forever). With this in mind, on page 217 Rohman and Wlecke begin to provide solutions by first of all pointing out that there are two types of teaching -- one of which I will address: Expositional mode. This mode of teaching is teacher based which I believe is the best as the one person who truly understands what is occurring in the classroom is the one standing, giving direction, lectures, and organizing activities for the students be it elementary or graduate school. The article, however, recognizes that we all have weakness that is inherited as opposed to formed. These weaknesses, according to Rohman and Wlecke are unfixable, but I disagree.
Using the "Archetype of the Plant" on page 222, and the first metaphor of, "planting a seed" I address grammar as the seed -- the most basic piece of composition needed, as we discussed, to confer a basic thought and hold basic communication. If composition begins at grammar and builds to argument which will "unveil a perspective as best we can that has not become ordered on a public map," then we can discuss those developmental/reticent writers.
These writers need repetition and experience that "discovery" as discussed on 225 in order to see success with the basics in order to move to the argument.
Assessment will be based on the argument and grammar, and technology has its place, but as the article did not address technology in pedagogy, I stand by what I said in class and reaffirmed as I was working on my blog -- I'm a pencil to paper guy!