Blog #5

Letter to My Partner

Dear Jayme,

The first idea that comes to mind for me concerning this week’s readings is the ever important idea of connecting writing and content in a meaningful way. When Bean provided the example of how some “students complain that a writing teacher has no business criticizing one’s ideas (‘This is a writing class!’) just as a history or science teacher has no business criticizing one’s writing (‘This is not a writing class!’),” (16) this sparked a personal connection for me. As a high school student, I was usually frustrated when a writing teacher only commented on my spelling and grammar and said nothing concerning the content of my writing. It made me feel that the assignment was a waste of time and that I could have written just anything if I was going to be judged and graded based solely on spelling and grammar skills. This emphasis on skill allows writing students to get by without using any critical thinking or engagement in content. Therefore, I would personally disagree with this observation. I think the real problem is teachers who think this way, would you agree?

I believe that a large part of Bean’s underlying argument is that writing is critical for much more than spelling and grammar and I would agree. Good writing can do a lot. Bean describes academic writing, beginning at the bottom of page 17 and continuing at the top of page 18. This reminded me of one significant function of good writing, which is writing as a means of organization of ideas and evidence. I see organization as he describes structure, thesis statement, and supporting evidence. Do you see what I mean and would you agree?

Rose clearly shares Bean’s sentiments concerning writing. He also sees writing as an important component of learning. He demonstrates this as he explores the history of teaching writing and various theories concerning writing. At one point in the article, Rose discusses the strong emphasis that was placed on the scientific ways of teaching writing, such as finding ways to eliminate the production of errors in student writing in earlier times (Page 344-345). I found this portion of the reading interesting. However, I would absolutely agree with Rose when he states “When student writing is viewed in this particularistic, pseudo-scientific way, it gets defined in very limited terms as a narrow band of inadequate behavior separate from the vastly complex composing that faculty members engage in for a living and delve into for work and for play. And such perception yields what it intends: a behavior that is stripped of its rich cognitive and rhetorical complexity” (345). What are your thoughts?

Both Bean and Rose discuss writing as a tool. In certain ways I think it is and in certain ways I think it is much more. What do you think?

One of the largest issues I found in the readings was the problem of how to classify writing (Is it a skill? Is it a tool? Is it something else entirely?) I feel that this is a very complex question and is left somewhat unresolved. I would say it is and isn’t each of these. What are your thoughts?

And did you come across any other interesting quotes or ideas throughout your reading of this week’s texts that you would like to share with me?

Sincerely,
Rachael