R4

Mathieu’s ideal course intrigues me. I appreciate her thematic approach and the diverse assignments that culminate in a multifaceted research project. Requiring a project such as this one that appeals to the students’ interests likely results in more informed writing than assigning a topic without a personal connection. Of course, and Mathieu made a point of mentioning this, the students must understand the background research involved before interviewing to create a research-based personal history. This type of assignment provides an interesting model that I may emulate to a certain extent. The greater challenge that my students will face is putting the university library to use. With the vast number of sources available on the Internet and through digital government archives, my students have become accustomed to researching electronically. They may have no concept of the beneficial resources available in print from the library. Sad, but true, to many of them, print is dying.

In terms of service learning, I am perplexed at the hesitation to attach this segment to the course. As a board member of a service learning nonprofit, I find it disappointing that the assumption is made to abandon that aspect because a semester may be too short or the first year too demanding. When I address students hoping to earn scholarships for their service learning projects, I am amazed by what they can accomplish in a short period of time while they are also taking AP and honors courses and participating in extracurricular activities. Many high schools require service hours, and many students are, therefore, accustomed to giving time to help others. This builds a well-rounded individual.

Redd’s course offers more practical assignments that provide real world writing, as I like to call it. It focuses on both academic writing and public sector text, and this would definitely benefit students well into their futures. I’m not well enough versed in the studies behind allowing students to use non-standard written English, but I definitely see the value of accepting dialects and cultural differences. It makes sense that students can explore and elucidate better when doing so in their natural linguistic style. What may help her program realize such success is the drive behind it to move students beyond the point where they entered the class. I really appreciate the use of discipline specific writing guides. This course seems to address my concerns is R3 regarding the purpose of the course altogether. Redd’s program exposes the students to a rich mixture of tools and styles, which in turn prepare them for many courses and experiences that lie ahead. Redd states that writing empowers the students, and I whole-heartedly agree. If a student can write successfully for a range of audiences and rhetorical situations, then that student can truly communicate, and with that comes both power and responsibility. At this stage in their lives, students need to take on the responsibility of mastering their voices and contributing to the adult dialogue of life.

R1: So What?

When I began reading Rewriting: How to Do Things With Texts, I was quickly reminded of a book from which I have borrowed many ideas for teaching writing.  In They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing, Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst offer suggestions and even templates that encourage and assist writers to “enter the conversation” of academic writing.  As in Rewriting, They Say/I Say explores several ways that writers work with texts to advance their own ideas.

One “move” that Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst suggest, which I find myself reminding students over and over again in my own classroom, is one which asks the writer to explain WHY what they are saying matters.  The authors assert that “rather than assume that audiences will know why their claims matter, all writers need to answer the “so what?” and “who cares?” questions up front. ”  This assertion not only gives a writer the directive to respond to these questions, but also implicitly requires the writer to consider her audience.  Considering audience (whether academic specialization, political slant, gender, or something else) can help the writer determine WHY what he or she has to say will matter to whomever she is writing for, completing the rhetorical triangle connecting writer, subject, and audience.

I have suggested that students in my classroom address this move at the end of their essays (rather than “up front” as suggested in They Say/I Say).  In the formulaic final “element of an argument” (after the hook, claim, support, and concessions/refutation), the call to action seems a natural location for writers to directly address their audience by calling on readers to DO SOMETHING as a result of reading the text, providing them with a reason why the text matters – answer the “so what?”  However, this move is offered in They Say/I Say as a way to hook the audience from the outset, giving them a purpose for reading the text.  I propose that either approach can be effective, as long as a writer remembers to address her audience by telling them why what she has to say matters and why they, too, should care.

In an editorial assignment completed by 10th graders at Conrad Schools of Science, one student (Madison) hooks her audience with the following opening: “Thin hair, baggy eyes, yellow teeth and wrinkles before you’re old: all effects of smoking. Most people agree that the smoke is not worth it; in fact, approximately 3 out of 4 adults in the United States reported that they do not smoke,” and concludes with “If people want to save the next generation, they need to first acknowledge the problem.”  She tells us who cares – “3 out of 4 adults,” people who do not want to look old before their time, and people who “want to save the next generation.”  She addresses this additional move which calls for academic writers to say why it matters.