R4: A Review of Sorts

I found Tinsberg to be my favorite instructor (besides the author of that first text we read!); he had a very clear and concise way of laying things out.  He captured the essence of nearly every instructor’s plight in a simple yet rigorous plan.  He had consistent expectations like the two drafts per assignment and very well-thought out assignments that are reflected in his student objectives.  He knows he needs to empower students through language study, retooling writing skills, and adhering to the process.  I loved his Essay of Belief/radio assignment that he uses to specifically let students realize “their ideas matter.”  I find his Essay of Application very relevant and applicable, while also thoroughly thought out and structured.  Though other instructors have mentioned the writer’s memo, I like his simple explanation and 3 questions that frame all memos.  Tinsberg offered not only great ideas for curriculum design, but the philosophical approach to Writing instruction.

 

I found Villanueva’s writing interesting, relevant, and easy to follow; but relative the wealth of notes I took from Tinsberg’s chapter, I took very little for Villanueva’s chapter as little was new to me and I was still relating everything back to Tinsberg. That being said, he discussed writing instruction in a way that confirmed some of my thoughts, but did not make me think of anything new.

 

Wardle and Downs reiterate the Writing about Writing approach that was previously mentioned and little elaborated.  Like with Villanueva, I didn’t feel anything profoundly new was offered, but some of their philosophies and explanations were helpful.  I appreciated their definition of writing and some of the requirements of developing authentic writing tasks.  I like their explanation of learning through writing versus societal beliefs of simply “recording information.”  I especially like their explanation of what E101 is – they describe it as a beginning of a vertical writing journey that continues beyond the course, presumably lifelong.  I admittedly did not like their tandem writing in the last several pages – I continually wished they had cut back on the back-and-forth; it was refreshing at first, but then became tired and cumbersome.

 

As with the last two, I felt Yancey was not offering many fresh ideas, but reiterating previous practices of other instructors (I know they can’t help where editors decided to sequence their chapters, but as a reader, my interest waned.  Yancey did provide some interesting information about 3 tendencies that influence FYC curricula: WPA outcomes, Framework for Success in College Writing, and the local campus initiatives for FYC.  She makes an interesting point about the evolution of facts as it relates to writing “correctly”; what we do today, may be found out to be false or partially false down the road, but we still have to follow some procedure and framework.  Since writing is largely rooted within society, there is an expectation of its evolution as society evolves (or perhaps writing is the causation of societal evolution!)   Nonetheless, she reminds us to be open minded ourselves.

 

I also liked Yancey’s assignment “Composition-in-Three-Genres”.  It was mentioned previously, but I like her set-up and explanation of the assignment; an adapted version will find its way into my course.

 

Please excuse my structure for this response; I just felt like reviewing each chapter.

 

Lastly, I want to thank everyone again for the wonderful examples/models of curricula  from which I will be perfecting my own curriculum and for the wonderful feedback.  Despite my own disappointment due to doubting E110 implementation any time soon at my school, I am very grateful to be working with such an efficient group; your energy is contagious and you really propel me to hone my own talents and perfect my E110 curriculum.  Thank you!