The Art of Written Thinking

In answering the question of what does composition means to me, I was surprised to see the sheer blandness of my first response to this question three months ago; Composition is the art of composing documents of any kind like technical reports, essays or stories. My second response argues that Composition is the art of written thinking. As teachers of composition, we are to teach students how to think. We are to teach current day students the power of the written word and how to persuade an audience of any beliefs or opinion. Written thinking is composing any type of document, however, it must have the power of language behind it.
Teaching students how, not what, to think is a challenge. We teach them how to think by attacking what they think, they think. For instance, we began this class by talking about Cannibalism and followed it up further with a Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift. We talked about how language sets us apart from animals and can give us the power of choice, “selfish gene theory holds that morality cannot be explained genetically.” It is language that proves or disproves morality, since, in contrast, Jonathan Swift argues for eating and using the bodies of children, “those who may be more thrifty may flay the carcass; the skin of which artificially dressed will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.” The written word can tell us that as humans, we have the choice to be moral, or, we can use this power to argue to have a child for dinner, which in most cultures is deemed as immoral. Taking this back to the practice of thinking, I want to ask my students what they think about this dichotomy of morals in essays that are equally persuasive. Persuading me that this idea is either right or wrong, as we discussed in our class, can show them that their thoughts matter. The very words they use whether it be saying how useful a child’s skin can be or claiming that humans can be cannibals and languages give us morality, matter. In Kelley Slack’s presentation, she discussed an article,” I Thought Composition Was About Commas and Quotes, Not Queers” arguing the need of teaching students to understand the ideas and thoughts behind language and going beyond learning simple grammar and punctuation aspects into a critical analysis of the language they use. Making students analyze the language they use everyday, such as phrases like, “that’s go gay”, can show them what they really are saying about their character and how language shapes who they are. It shapes their personal reality of who people presume they are based on the language they use.
Teaching thinking is to “argue for a version of reality” according to Lanham. We create our own reality, who we are, through what we think, which we communicate to others through language. Swift seemingly wanted a reality of eating children. Students need to realize the power they have through language to create their own reality. AJ Dickman used a quote in his presentation by David Bartholomy, an author and creative writing professor at a University in Kentucky, “If there’s no personality in your writing, it’s dead. If it’s not your personality, you’re dead. Bang,bang.” We can teach students that if their writing is not thinking, it has no point; words cannot have meaning unless they provoke a thought. In a sense, the art of writing is circular; it must begin with a thought and provoke a thought. I want my students to be lost in this circle.
Overall, while the theory of thinking as writing can de debated on for hours, it is how we put it in the classroom, the practicality of this thinking theory that matters. I’ll put it in the classroom by challenging my student’s thoughts by commenting on their essays as Meredith Cockrum talked about in her presentation on the article “The Genre of the End Comment: Conventions in Teacher Responses to Student Writing.” I’ll ask them what they think and with them argue for and against it. I’ll give them the Scarlet Letter and ask if they have ever been treated like that. I’ll make them write down their opinions on every issue and piece of writing I present and won’t offer them an umbrella for their brainstorms. I’ll make the classroom of community of ideas, and not just a group of students. Composition is the art of written thinking.

El Fin

This class has probably been one of my favorites in my entire time at Tech. I feel all of our readings and discussions have added a lot to my personal teaching philosophy. I've lost count on how many times I've talked about the different approaches to teaching as per Berlin's ideas, objective, subjective, and rhetorical, with my professors and peers alike. I am dead set against a single objective teaching approach in today's society of technical learners. This class has also made me even more opinionated than I already was and makes me honestly feel like I know what I'm talking about, with scholarly backup with the articles and discussions we’ve had in class.
It was also nice to know that some of my preliminary ideas prior to this class weren't just hogwash. (Teaching writing is about teaching students how to think) Had I of taken this class before my junior year, I probably would have switched my major to technical communication. This class has set my passion for teaching ablaze, that’s for sure.
It has also persuaded me to go for a graduate degree in instructional technology. (developing new curriculum using technology applications). I’m loving my research paper on computerizing composition and might use it for a foundation for work if I do manage to make it to graduate school. My favorite part of this class was talking about the future of composition. (Imagine that, right?) I looked up Lanham’s The Electronic Word and am loving it. (Thank you Google books). While Style: The Anti-Textbook was my least favorite part of the course, Lanham does have some other good ideas.
I think we well covered issues in composition. This was the type of class I was looking for as an English major. Part philosophy+part practicality=one of the best classes in the English Department.

Computerizing Composition in the Secondary Classroom

So, I can already hear some of you groaning at the title of my paper.

However, here's a very rough outline.


I-Why? Pros
A.Keeps students interest in a tech savvy society.
B.Integrates technology in a technological world (articles from class)

II-How would it work?
A. A MOO classroom
B. online writing blogs/places to write drafts/get critiques
C. webcams/webx/microsoft live meeting/skype
D. Interactive approach-using streaming video, etc.

III- Counter argument? Cons
A. Student vs. Instructor Perspective
B. Loss of traditional classroom?
C. Do you lose the true “meaning” or “process” of writing?
D Issues with TOPIC/ICON on the college level


Sources so far:
MOO-based Metacognition- Joel A. English
Reflection in the Electronic Classroom- L. Lennie Irvin
Interviewed students/current teachers about the idea/Lubbock-Cooper HS
Article about TOPIC/ICON
Databases and Collaborative Spaces for Composition- Lowe and Barton 2006
Interview with computer programmer about computer feasibility of process


I have read quite a bit about different approaches on how computerized composition has worked and not worked. I've also interviewed ten 9th graders about their opinion if they could have their English class online instead of sitting in a classroom. Surprisingly, most students were against it. They didn't want to lose their social life and interaction with the teacher. A few said they thought they would enjoy it since they could get their work done without dealing with classroom distractions. One said he didn't feel he was good enough at computers and wouldf find it even more boring than he currently does. I'm also planning on interviewing 10th graders next week, as well as a couple teachers to get an infield opinion. Interviewing two computer programmers as far as the feasibility of this idea is also an option. I'm trying to get ahold of Lanham's book, The Electronic Word, too.


My overall goal with this paper is to evaluate the theory and practicality of computerizing composition using theorists, programming knowledge, and teacher/student opinion, and the opinions from our class using the MOO transcript. It's pretty rough right now, and I'm still working on forming a concise thesis. I'm having a hard time narrowing it down. (As you can probably tell)

Any ideas?

MOO fan, though I hate milk

Lame title, I realize, sorry. My brain has shut down for spring break, haha.

I found the MOO to be a pretty awesome tool. I have a feeling there's just one other person who agrees with me. However, I was a computer nerd starting around age 11, have built my own computer once, and own four gaming systems. (wii, 360, n64, sega genesis). I was at the opening night of Halo 3. The first thing I do when getting back from class is turn on my computer (a macbook pro). I chat with my parents and significant other online more than I talk to them on the phone. (both live several hours away). I have to say I "compose my world" through text messages and instant messages and typing on MS Word that I do using any other medium.

I had a blast using the MOO in class. I found the hum of people typing invigorating. The constant change of the messages in front of me kept me very interested and my mind exploding with thoughts and ideas. It's easy to say that the future generation who those of us might be teaching might be the same way. They're so used to the instantanousness (a word?) of email and text messaging, who's to say that this same principal couldn't be enacted in a classroom?

However, I do foresee a possible society that's portrayed in Farhenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury if, by chance, books and rhetoric do not keep up with technology. Maybe this is a very far fetched thought, but what if? If books and paper don't turn into digitalized mediums, will they be lost forever? On the other hand, stealing an image from The Matrix, what if one day we can just "plug in" and have thousands of books inserted into our minds?

So, that was a random disgression.

I do think that with further tweaking, a system like the MOO could be very useful. Many of the complaints I heard were that people couldn't keep up, it gave no way for the teacher to have control, no way to force proper grammer, and conversations could easily diagress. There are easy fixes to all of these with a few changes in the way the MOO might be programmed. For instance, an instructor could have the ability to turn off all comments untill the lesson was over, be able to turn off the commenting capabilities for individual students in case of topic digression, and easily write in a grammar/spell check program like what's in MS Word. While I do think that the teacher/student interaction is VERY important, I think written interaction could have a helpful place. As long as a dialogue between student and teacher is open, does it matter if it's spoken or written?

HeY SuP
chAt sPeaK
new language
where art thou?

Wiki
dictionary.com
what happened to paper?
go to the library?

Chatroom
blog
new classroom?
school or education?


(This is why I'm not a creative writing major...)

Interacting with Meaning

"Learning to write is not a matter of learning the rules that govern the use of the semicolon or the names of sentence structures, nor is it a matter of manipulating words; it is a matter of making meanings, and that is the work of the active mind." -Berlin

"English is like oxygen. It's an art of expression" - 9th grader at Lubbock Cooper High School

"I know how to speak it, why do they need other rules for it?" other 9th grader at Lubbock Cooper High School
What do these three quotes have in common? What are they really saying? Berlin argues that learning to write is a rhetorical process. It's not about rules, learning where a period, or comma is placed; it's constructing meaning through interaction. This is the method I most enjoyed. I feel teaching composition should be an on-going dialogue between teacher and student. Isn't that what language is anyway, but a dialogue? (Even if we talk to ourselves…)

When I took the quick write survey yesterday at LCHS asking them to explain why the hated or liked English, I was blown away by a few of the responses. Most of them were exactly what we’d talked about in class. However, as with the first quote, one student saw that writing is an art of expression. It’s a “matter of making meanings” as Berlin said.

Most students lose this connection and get stuck with the mechanics. Berlin later argued in his article that the content of the essay was more important than the structure. It’s easy to understand that last student’s comment. Unfortunately, there’s a discrepancy in being able to speak a language and being able to write it. Often don’t we have more freedom in writing to express ourselves? We’re bound by physical means in the spoken language.

However, to get back to the point, if teachers taught more of a rhetorical approach to writing as Berlin suggested, I think we might have more responses like the first student who felt writing was an art and an interactive process with meaning.

Humans and Humanism

I found our discussion on humanism to be very interesting, though blurry. I enjoyed the article we were assigned and quotes included in the article.
“Humanism is the study and practice of the principle of human happiness uncomplicated by naturistic dogmas on the one side and religion dogmas on the other” –G.R. Elliot
This quote seemed to explain the clearest what humanism is- a belief in humans. As a species, we feel that we control our own happiness and are not bound to any supernatural power or deity. We have, in our own power, the ability to strive for happiness. As discussed in class, we run into problems. Not everyone has the same happiness to pursue. Not everyone is equal. We should have equal opportunity, but how can we put a standard on what might be called happiness?
This has everything and nothing to do with composition. In a sense, if we have a purpose to do anything, we have a reason to write about it. If our purpose is happiness, we are given an equal opportunity to compose our own existence through writing. If this is the case, then we as teachers are to present this to our students. We need to give them the tools and opportunities necessary to compose whatever their happiness is.

Rhetoric Works

The art of rhetoric will be the prime focus of my future career. Come on, as a teacher, I’m going to have to argue with my students as to why, yes, they have to do their homework. Just kidding.
On a more serious note, the concept of rhetoric will follow my career into whatever high school I wind up in. It will be my job to successfully communicate messages to my students. Furthermore, assignments could focus on appealing to logos, ethos, or pathos. A student can identify more with the assignment if it appeals to his or her logic, emotion, or character. This idea came to mind after studying the idea of multiple intelligences.
Rhetoric can help me on the basic level of communication in my working environment, future classes, and relationships. My supervisor told me once that she felt that communication was a strong point of mine. I’m not sure if this is true. However, I do find that I like to make sure everyone is the same page. I like to have a reason, logos, pathos, or ethos, behind what I’m doing. I want to be able to uphold an argument as to why I’m doing what I’m doing. Furthermore, I want to be very clear in my intentions and arguments. I want to be clear in what I’m asking or wondering about my significant other. Miscommunication is a scary term in today’s society. This concept of rhetoric can help us learn how to communicate and teach others how to express ideas.

The Power of Thinking

I have to say that I enjoy this class very much. I love the discussions that we have requiring deep thought. I like learning how abstract this idea of rhetoric really is. It seems the idea we’ve been given most is that rhetoric is really just “thinking”. I still think that rhetoric can change the world. I’ve been observing several different classrooms through my education courses and see that often at times students aren’t allowed to or aren’t encouraged to think. Information is just thrown at them and they are expected to assimilate it, not analyze it. In reality, rhetoric is just a component of higher thinking. As humans, we’ve acquired this realm and ability to share complex ideas. Through the Toulmin model, we can successfully develop ideas and break them down. Furthermore, we can develop ideas that can’t be attacked. How much power is in that alone? Perhaps I am just power hungry, but the thought that rhetoric is such an art that I can learn entices me.
I can honestly say my brain hurts sometimes after class. However, it has sparked other creative and thoughtful juices I haven’t had since high school. These juices have helped me endeavor to spark higher thinking in the students I’ve been working with. So overall, I do believe I’m enjoying this course and it has been very helpful.

"You are the Weakest Link. Goodbye"

Language persuades us that we, indeed, were the weakest link if we couldn't answer some senseless questions on some game show. It wasn't the British lady who made it hurt, it was the fact that these words had meaning. I blame the words themselves. Not the British. We won that war.
I agree with the idea that language persuades us. We are constantly asking ourselves or proving to someone else what we do every day. We persuade the voices in our head that it was okay that we had McDonalds for dinner, even though we're on a diet. We persuade others that we know something in every day conversation. We persuade others by our appearance and manner of speaking who we are and what we stand for.
I think this is an excellent point to bring up to students. Rhetoric gives them a power they already have to run with and develop. Often when I'm tutoring, I ask my students the question of "why". It takes an understanding of rhetoric to satisfy the need to know "why" or persuade your audience of a certain idea. I want to know why your dog ate your homework.
After taking a technical communication class last semester, I find myself occupied with critiquing how clear and concise, not only documents are, but how others use language. Clarity in language helps us to function. Rhetoric helps us to know what someone is clearly asking of us.

The art of rhetoric is everywhere. Viewing the world through rhetoric causes us to question and come up with answers. Don't we want to join this game show?

Are Humans Ever Selfless?

I would agree that humans could have the ability to be cannibals under the right circumstances. As a matter of survival, we think of ourselves first. We may think of ourselves first if it means doing anything possible to keep our young alive so our genes are passed on. We may do something special so we know we are that "good significant other" to our special someone. In reality, do we ever do anything completely selfless?
On the other hand, through language we can moralize or dispute what we're trying to do. We can stop someone's bad day with encouraging words. We can hurt someone with angry words. We can say "I love you" or "I hate you". Words give us a choice in our actions.
This matters because this gives humans a power over most other species on this planet. We want to be able to control others and ourselves with words. And we want to be able to do that well. A well-written document can start a war or start a marriage. Language is the great moral reformer since we have so much power, good or bad, when we gain the ability to use it.
While this post makes humans seem like selfish creatures, I do believe they have the capablity to be good. During the Holocaust, someone can exchange vowels at the same time as a Nazi solider is yelling how worthless they are and threatening to kill. We obviously have the need to survive that causes us to be selfish, but the ability to exchange our intricate language gives us the choice to moralize our actions, good or bad.