While reading Alexander Reid’s commentary on writing, I nodded, “yes, yes. Writing is ontological.” To become a better writer one must write often in lots of contexts with an audience in which one has an affinity so as to be better motivated to write, for better writers are motivated writers. So true. Then I read Jody Shipka’s writing commentary and continued nodding “yes” as I read about her analogy that writing is like composing. Like the musician, one hears the inner music and then begins to form that music into themes, beginning with a hook, melodies, harmonies, building repetitions, intercutting and reconfiguring, reaching the climax, and ending with a resonance that lingers.
These skills of composing music from the inner ear to the final medium is the same as writing: an exploration of themes countered against and intertwined with melodies and disharmonies building together to an effective end that seems to resonate past the last word. Writing is composing, and requires an awareness of the whole self to see that writing is not a bunch of rules memorized and forms mastered that come together on paper but a process of exploring and shaping “melodies and harmonies” with “disharmonies” that stay within tightly controlled keys and themes for an audience of one or one million.
This composing analogy reinforces Reid’s beliefs that the writing never ends, just like the music. The writing continues, as he says for his professional writers, and that is true for the professionals. But most students in my E110 class or other writing class at the high school level will not plan on being professional writers. They must know how to read critically and express themselves coherently with academic tools, but they do not need to write into infinity. Writing more without meta-cognitive thought about the writing does not necessarily improve the writing; more writing just shows that they have more to say, not necessarily how better to say it.
So reading Jody Shipka’s examples of projects and assignments was refreshing as they focused on the meta-cognitive levels of thinking with simple assignments that had broad ramifications. She asked students to record every genre of writing they have ever done with great specificity so that students could become aware of how much writing they do. They are already writers. Then she asks them to record “This is How I learned to Read and Write,” again to develop awareness that they are writers continuing to improve skills. My favorite is to find six completely different mediums that focus on the same message or stereotype and analyze how these different literary mediums affect their audiences through their approaches. The project could easily be turned into a fun classroom activity as a group (I can increase the numbers of examples) that can lead into an excellent discussion about genres, audiences, approaches, and more. I loved that assignment. My only disagreement or difference in perspective with Jody Shipka is that this meta-cognitive understanding of writing begins not with the composing process, as Shipka states, but. I believe, with the study of language itself. Studying composition theories is wonderful, but only after the students have a good understanding of the nature of language. I believe students need a meta-cognitive awareness of words and their structures and how these structures limit their thinking if unaware of such structures.
By time I began reading Howard Tinberg, I was copying down example lesson plans for they work beautifully with developing a meta-cognitive sense of writing as an ontological tool: An essay of belief focuses on the power of writing to clarify consciously for oneself what one actually does believe. A profile of another after interviewing that person focuses on the key aspects or the interpretive thesis or “nut graf” of the person, which shows how writing helps to clarify new knowledge and its significance (particularly helpful when business managers must write up reviews). The trend paper, however, is awesome, for that paper requires personal insight, research for support, and ontological purpose for self and our society.
Because I mined Shipka’s and Tinberg’s commentaries for really good assignments that focus on the meta-cognitive nature of writing, I went back to Reid’s and looked up his assigned readings and began to read. Nichols Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is excellent for exploring writing, thinking, reading, and the larger matrix overall. These three writing professors have been extremely helpful in focusing a meta-cognitive, ontological approach towards writing with some excellent assignments I will be borrowing.
Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford, eds. First-Year Composition: From Theory to Practice. Parlor Press, 2014. Print.
E688: Seminar in Teaching Composition 
I really have to agree with you on several assignments I took away from the essays that seem very worthwhile. I, too, was fascinated with the “Texts in Contexts” assignment as it seems this would get students to see beyond just written and spoken text and the power of stereotypes in such a wide variety. However, to extend your response, I also took away Shipka’s realistic label to this project as “daunting. Students often claim that they have no idea of what to do or where to start” (225). Shipka really had a worthwhile idea about the two in-class workshops held one week after the project is assigned. Instead of having them bring rough drafts, she has them compose “project notes,” which seem to be the epitome of metacognition towards brainstorming. I just could not help identify this as a genius move, since we have been frequently reading about metacognition in writing, but quality brainstorming always precedes great writing, so this just makes so much sense.
Tinberg’s “This I Believe” essay also struck me as assignment I want to incorporate early on in my class especially for the sake of selling the epistemic power of writing to students. Wardle and Downs really validated my belief for this assignment when discussing their philosophy stating, “Writing is an activity that generates new knowledge…How we understand our world depends in large on the language we use to describe and talk about it, so that our expressive choices generate (understandings of) reality” (278). Getting students to really sort out their own thoughts and beliefs is a powerful activity, and I have no doubt that it will not only make them respect themselves, but the power of writing even more.
Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford, eds. First-Year Composition: From Theory to Practice. Parlor Press, 2014. Print.
You pointed out a point I firmly agree and forgot to mention: “How we understand our world depends in large on the language we use to describe and talk about it” (Wardle and Downs 278). I believe we define ourselves through our language, and to make students aware of this process prior to the writing process makes them more conscious of what and how they are saying what they say. So brainstorming is imperative, and using an entire class to brainstorm shows the power of multiple minds working on the same subject; actually using language to define one’s beliefs opens up the conversation about the power of language. And that “Texts in Contexts” assignment sounds like fun, almost like an Easter egg hunt and then a lot of discussion about the “eggs” that were found.
Dear Mary Kay,
Okay, so now I’m getting annoyed at WordPress. I wrote a bunch of comments on Wednesday, and thought I had posted them, but now I’ve discovered that they seemed to have vanished, literally, into the ether!
But what I recall writing to you was: It strikes me in reading your post how getting to work with students over the course of a year is a real luxury, since it gives you time to experiment with a wide range of what I agree are very interesting assignments in First-Year Comp. What I’d encourage you to think a little more about, as you continue to develop your course, is the “arc” that will connect the assignments—how one project will lead into the next, so that they seems a coherent sequence rather than just a grab-bag of interesting projects.
I look forward to working with you on your actual course next week!
Joe
I agree with your emphasis on language–understanding words, forms, usage, before being able to use them effectively. A great example of the need for language knowledge lies in a student who employs a thesaurus without understanding the words. I remember a student from about twenty years ago who did this, and the result was disturbingly filled with double entendre, a result that I do not think was intended at all. She was trying to use more sophisticated vocabulary, but she went about it without understanding her choices.
Sometimes, I will ask students in class to look up words on Thesaurus.com and pick a few synonyms at random. When we place them in the passage, the meaning changes completely. It works like Madlibs. From there, we look at parallel structure, sentence variety, etc., to determine how fluent the writing is, how well one sentence balances another. It all works together like music. Looking at a piece of writing under such a lens is really intensive, and quite a few students struggle with the idea at first, but I would like to think that several walk away thinking about their own writing very differently.
I love your idea of learning the differences in synonyms by using common synonyms in a Madlib style. That exercise sounds like a fun way of making an important point. And treating language as if it were music is my analogy of its power to “speak” so powerfully, as images and musical rhythms physically, mentally, and spiritually move us while we read or listen to language.