Blog Post (4/17)


                As a Rhetoric instructor, I think that I am most familiar with the Learning to Write (LW) paradigm. My course is designed to help students understands the various social demands they will write in, as well as why it is so important that they know who they are writing for (their audience). However, as a tool to improve LW skills I often make my students write about something – Maus, an interview they conducted, a news article. In this way, I also emphasize Writing to Learn Content (LWC). My students practice their critical reading skills when they decide what is the most important or noteworthy feature of what they read. Writing to Learn Language (WLL) is probably the category I work least with, mostly because my students already have a basic knowledge of grammar and vocabulary. We still do work on passive voice, word choice, and grammar rules – but only if I notice it becoming a problem in their papers. I wasn’t shocked to read the first-hand account from the student who was disappointed that their teacher did not emphasize WLL more – and I understand that this is an area that non-native speakers are especially sensitive towards. Grammar is important to be understood, but not a barometer of what I usually look for, which is the quality of thought students put into their writing.

I agree with the article in that a synergistic approach to LW, LWC, AND WLL is best because each of the categories feed off each other.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing to Learn, Learning to Write

I'm familiar with different approaches in different contexts. As an instructor, I'm most familiar with learning to write, because even my content-based assignments receive extensive writing attention. As a student, though, I was and am more familiar with writing to learn. But I'm still displeased that as a student in English at the undergraduate, MA, and PhD levels, there was/is not more attention placed on learning to write. At this stage, this seems to be something professors take for granted. (I was recently told: "That's not how you title a dissertation chapter." And I responded: "Can you please tell me how you title a book chapter? I have never done this.") I think also in liberal arts required courses, writing to learn is prioritized in many (most?) disciplines. I'm not particularly persuaded by one form over another, though I have never succeeded in writing to learn language models. But I am partial to the idea that learning to write sho...
Read more

Emi 03/27

These two case studies consider two different research methods that will inevitably lead to very different discussions and presentation of the ideas.  T he non-fiction case study (Lorraine) is purely qualitative, while the academic case study (Fei) is a mixed methods study in which qualitative data is quantitized and the rest of the collected qualitative data (e.g. interview) mainly serves to enhance legitimation. These two different focus, qualitative (Lorraine) and Mixed methods with a focus on quantitative (Fei) are well accepted in research. However, the way that readers approach them may be very different. The qualitative (non-fiction) case study is more engaging, more relatable, and easier to read. As promoted in Qualitative research, the authors present the data as if it were a story and include very detailed anecdotes (called vignettes) that represent the main point to be conveyed. The study is not replicable, but the authors do provide additional information to ensure...
Read more

4/17

In my tutoring sessions, I've been most familiar with the 'learning to write' paradigm. I felt Ortega's statement that "...LW places at the center of attention the cognitive activity of the writer and her or his authorial voice" encapsulates the work my students have called on me to do. Whether they're working on a Peace Corps application, a psychology paper, a global health paper or a speech for Rhetoric, I've found my work can be described in Ortega's twofold statement: helping students put in writing first, their cognitive activity (their opinions, arguments, and questions) and second, their authorial voice (by airing confusions, doubts, and identifying needs for further research). In class, I'm wondering if we can have a discussion about the overlap between LW and WLL when it comes to students picking up specific language necessary for academic assignments. As Ortega writes, there is a difference between students "learning to write abo...
Read more