Review of Reading Culture: Context for Critical Reading and Writing, 4th ed., by Kimberly Norlund

November 12, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Reading Culture by Diana George and John Trimbur is not a how-to text on writing but rather a how-to text on thinking critically of American culture.  As a visually stimulating reader reflecting everyday encounters through articles and illustrations, Reading Culture succeeds in capturing its audience’s attention.  George and Trimbur’s idea is “to treat contemporary American culture as a vast research project‑‑to understand its ways of life from the inside as you live and observe them” (3).  The ten chapters include such topics as Generations, Schooling, Work, Images, Style, History, and Multicultural America.  These topics give students a chance to read persuasive arguments on such matters as they might encounter in life, not just in the classroom.  George and Trimbur explain, “One of our central aims is to provide students with reading and writing assignments in their familiar ways of life, and to understand how these ways of life fit into the diverse, mass-mediated, multicultural realities of contemporary America” (xxv).  The authors do succeed with this aim.

For teachers of a persuasive argument class, this text would be a good primary text.  The authors have made the text extremely flexible for the classroom by providing alternate groupings of the articles under the sections “Alternate Contents” and “Rhetorical Contents.”  Alternate Contents assembles articles under the following headings: Journalism and Popular Writing, Academic and Critical Writing, and Literary Essays and Fiction. Rhetorical Contents uses heading such as narration, description, exposition/informative writing, etc., to group articles.  In this way, teachers are free to have students move around the text as needed depending on the topic being taught.  Also, there are suggestions for reading, discussion, and writing with almost every reading.

This text also offers several other features not necessarily included in other comparable texts.  The Visual Culture sections show students different images such as billboards or newspaper pictures to analyze and interpret. The Fieldwork sections in most chapters offer students a chance to observe and interview people about culture in a broad sense.  the Mining the Archive sections are especially helpful for students to learn to use resources such as the Web and the library.  These sections give a historical significance to the topic being discussed.  One assignment might be for students to find old textbooks in the library and write about the different cultural norms present in the past and how they have changed today.  Most chapters also offer a section called Perspectives, which shows paired readings of a particular topic.  These readings show students how authors can have different ideas or thoughts about a subject and how they write persuasively in each case.

Another nice point about this text is that it offers a companion website (www.awl.com/george/).  This is not a duplication of the text but rather a complement to it.  The readings found here are different than those in the text yet they cover the same topics.  There are links to locations mentioned in the readings as well as helpful sites for students and teachers.  It also has capabilities for teachers to use this as a discussion board and a place students can submit reading responses online.

The readings on the website as well as in the text itself are quite interesting.  Such topics as daytime talk shows, school shootings, and “Goths in Disneyland” certainly grab students’ attention.  These readings may seem like fluff to some instructors but students do deal with these issues every day.  These topics are part of their culture here in America.  This text will help them look at this culture critically rather than to accept it at face value.  They will do this through writing persuasive arguments about their thoughts on the articles.  Although this text does not explicitly teach writing, students will learn to develop ideas and arguments as they explore culture in America.

Filed under 2011 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Review – Journeys Near and Far 1 & 2: Reading and Responding Critically by Liz Flynn

March 25, 2002 by Leave a Comment

Journeys Near and Far: Reading and Responding Critically is a two-volume reader de-signed for intermediate and high-intermediate ESL learners. Books 1 and 2 may be taught in subsequent courses, but would stand alone equally well. The set is a well-developed, solid addition to the growing array of cultural readers available to ESL educators.

Each book is made up of five chapters of three or four reading selections organized around a general theme. Prereading and preview activities appear before each selection; a short glos- sary, a cloze exercise, and open-ended questions for small group discussion follow.

The previews are particularly outstanding. Students examine the reading to discover as much as possible before they read, by looking at the title, author, source, and any pictures or charts. They then read the first and last paragraphs, skim the rest, and write down their im- pressions and questions. Unfortunately, the preview section appears only a few times in each book, so students have just three opportunities to do a guided preview before they are expected to do it independently.

Another useful activity is “Another Look at the Selection”, which invites students to delve more deeply into the ideas, language, or style of a reading selection. Typical questions ask why a piece was written in a particular way, ask students to identify and list certain struc- tural or grammatical elements, or ask whether they agree with a statement or idea mentioned in the reading.

“Vocabulary Building” presents exercises along with learning strategies for students, in- cluding a vocabulary log. “In Your Words” asks students to write their opinions about spe- cific parts of the reading selection. A minor problem with this activity is that it allows only limited space for students to answer questions that are often quite complex. The “Summing Up” activity helps students summarize class opinions, make inferences about the readings, and check whether all their questions have been answered.

At the end of each chapter is an excellent “Reflecting and Synthesizing” activity that en- courages students to make connections between all the readings in that chapter. This section includes discussion questions and writing prompts, some of which address how the issues in the reading selections affect students’ own lives.

Best and Reppy have brought together authentic texts from a range of sources, from Nelson Mandela to Newsweek, and from Robert Frost to the Consumers Union. The readings are selected on the basis of their interest to students, and the activities are designed to encourage students’ active participation in their own learning. Citing Freire and Vygotsky, the authors have not simplified the reading selections but have developed activities to facilitate stu- dents’ understanding of the texts. Among the interactive activities and assignments are a vocabulary log, reading journal, classroom debate, short answer and longer writing prompts, double-entry reading journal, and Internet research. Experienced teachers will be able to choose those activities most beneficial to their students.

The authors suggest that Journeys Near and Far is most appropriate for intermediate ESL learners in post-secondary academic programs, but the critical thinking skills demanded by the activities would also benefit pre-academic ESL students who are preparing to meet the reading and writing demands of college or community college classes. Pre-academic stu- dents might find some of the activity instructions complex and difficult to understand, espe- cially in the second book, but this problem can be minimized with a teacher’s guidance and careful selection of activities.

Teachers will find Journeys Near and Far to be an engaging and versatile set of readers. The reading content, discussion questions, and writing activities will provide an interesting and enjoyable challenge to intermediate students in a reading or writing course.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review – Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading by Yunkyoung Kang

March 11, 2002 by Leave a Comment

Schema theory is a framework for the mental representation of knowledge. Schema, also called the “building block of cognition” (Rumelhart 1980), is a significant notion in under- standing the knowledge structure of our brains. What we know exists as schemata hierar- chies and this prior knowledge is activated when we encounter new information. This is the essential point to understanding how schema theory works and this fact has been investi- gated in the cognitive science field for decades. Rumelhart defines schema as follows:

A schema theory is basically a theory about… how knowledge is presented and about how that representation facilitates the use of the knowledge in particular ways. According to schema theories, all knowledge is packaged into units… [called] schemata. Embedded in these packets of knowledge is… information about how this knowledge is to be used.

A schema, then is a data structure for representing the generic concepts stored in memory. There are schemata representing our knowledge about all concepts: those underlying ob- jects, situation, events, sequences of events, actions and sequences of actions. A schema contains, as part of its specification, the network of interrelations that is believed to nor- mally hold among the constituents of the concept in question. A schema theory embodies a prototype theory of meaning. That is, inasmuch as a schema underlying a concept stored in memory corresponds to the meaning of that concept, meanings are encoded in terms of the typical or normal situations or events that instantiate that concept.

Schema theory has been utilized in research fields such as ESL education, especially in reading and writing instruction. According to schema theory, ESL students from different countries have different schemata and most have difficulties in processing knowledge like English native speakers. As this theory states, proficient readers are able to activate prior knowledge stored in memory to integrate new linguistic data in the comprehension process. Therefore, under schema theory, ESL reading and writing classes should utilize pre-reading and pre-writing activities to activate prior knowledge and teachers should provide minimal background knowledge when students do not have sufficient prior knowledge, especially due to cultural differences.

Despite all the recent developments in ESL research, the traditional grammar-translation approach is still practiced in most English classes throughout Asian countries such as Korea and Japan. In these countries, memorization and sentence level analysis using bottom-up skills is dominant in reading classes and students suffer from the inevitable lack of ability to use top-down skills. Therefore, reading practice based on schema theory is highly recom- mended for such students not only because it focuses on training for culture-specific texts but also since it trains students to use a top-down process in reading. This directly contrasts with the bottom-up process that these students are familiar with from traditional grammar- translation exercises.

Summary: Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading

Carrell is a well-known researcher on schema theory who has written various papers on it as well as on ESL/EFL teaching. According to Carrell, there are two types of schema: content and formal. Much research has studied the effects of each type separate from the other. In testing for content schemata effects, the formal rhetorical structure of a text constant is kept the same while content is manipulated for each comparable group of subjects to process each different content. Similarly, formal schemata effects can also be tested by keeping the content of a text constant while varying the rhetorical organization, and having comparable groups of subjects process each different rhetorical pattern. Research on content schemata consists of Steffensen, Joag-dev, and Anderson (1979), and Johnson (1981)’s study. Their findings suggest that text which contains culturally-familiar content schema is easier to process. Conversely, research that studied the effects of formal schemata (e.g. Carrell’s own previous studies, 1984a, 1984b) found that familiar formal schemata helped subjects better recall protocol information.

However, Carrell acknowledges that no research has successfully studied the combined ef- fects of both content and formal schemata in a single controlled study. Kintsch and Greene (1978), Carrell (1981), and Berkowitz and Taylor (1981) attempted to combine them in a single study but failed in controlling variables. Therefore, in the article, the author tries to examine the combined interaction of content and formal schemata in a single study, distinct from many studies which studied them separately. The purpose of this study is to show the simultaneous effects of both formal and content schemata on ESL reading comprehension which will make possible the rendering of specific hypotheses about reading familiar con- tent in an unfamiliar rhetorical form, or unfamiliar content in a familiar rhetorical form.

To examine this hypothesis, Carrell had two groups of ESL students (28 Muslims and 24 Catholics) read either culturally familiar content or culturally unfamiliar content. Within each group, half of the group read a familiar well-organized rhetorical format and the other half an unfamiliar, altered rhetorical format. Familiar content and familiar form in this study were defined as “texts which reflected the content domain of the reader’s cultural- religious group membership and a well-organized temporal sequence ordering, both pre- sumed to be related to the reader’s content and formal schemata, respectively.” Unfamiliar content and unfamiliar form in this study were defined as “texts which reflected a content domain opposite to the reader’s cultural-religious group membership and an inter- leaved/scrambled organization, both presumed to be unrelated to the reader’s content and formal schemata, respectively.” After the subjects read the text at their own pace, they were tested on recall by writing down everything they could remember from the passage. Also, a set of 14 multiple-choice comprehension inference questions for each text was given to the subjects.

The outcome supported the results of previous studies that reading is easiest when both con- tent and form are familiar and that reading is the most difficult when both are unfamiliar. When either form or content was unfamiliar, it was revealed that unfamiliar content sche- mata affected reading comprehension to a greater extent than formal schemata. In other words, reading familiar content even in an unfamiliar rhetorical form is relatively easier than reading unfamiliar content in a familiar rhetorical form. However, rhetorical form played a significant role in the comprehension of the top-level episodic arrangements of a text and in the understanding of event sequences and temporal relations among events.

Based on this result, Carrell claims that in the ESL reading classroom, content is of primary importance. Therefore, ESL reading teachers should be facilitators of the acquisition of appropriate cultural content knowledge to exemplify the schemata-embodying background knowledge which helps students comprehend, learn, and remember well. Carrell also sug- gests that ESL reading teachers should be aware of the rhetorical organization of texts in addition to teaching students how to identify and utilize top-level rhetorical organization of text for better comprehension and recall.

The greatest strength of the analysis was the careful control of variables. For example, Car- rell paid careful attention to detail in organizing texts, forming culturally homogeneous groups (based on religion), and analyzing multiple-choice questions both quantitatively and qualitatively with the fewest possible variables. One commendable feature of this article is that this study was not only pioneering – being the first of its kind – but it also called for further research on this issue. ESL teachers and researchers will both benefit greatly from Carrell’s thorough treatment of this topic.

Works cited:

Berkowitz, S., & Taylor, B. (1981). The effects of text type and familiarity on the nature of information recalled by readers. In M.L. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading: Research and instruction (pp. 157-161). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.

Carrell, P.L. (1981) Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In R. Orem & J. Has- kell (Eds.), Selected papers from the Ninth Illinois TESOL/BE Annual Convention, First Midwest TESOL Conference (pp. 123-132). Chicago: Illinois TESOL/BE.

Carrell, P.L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quar- terly, 18, 441-469.

Carrell, P.L. (1984b). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87-112.

Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 169-181.

Kintsch, W., & Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture specific schemata in the comprehen- sion and recall of stories. Discourse Processes, 1, 1-13.

Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. 33-58. Hills- dale, NJ: Lawreence Erlbaum Associates.

Steffensen, M.S., Joag-dev, C., & Anderson, R.C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10-29.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Derridean Approach to Critical Reading: A MONSTER! by Talitha May, Colorado State University

November 11, 2001 by Leave a Comment

Hearing the term “critical reading” provokes my composition students to lemon-pucker grimace and nervously shift in their seats as if a monster had suddenly appeared. They often gasp at the prospects of the composition course’s planned future critical reading unit. They identify with theorist Jacques Derrida’s notion that “the future is necessarily monstrous: the figure of the future, that is, that which can only be surprising, that for which [they] are not prepared, you see, is heralded by a species of monsters” (Derrida 386-7). I do not try convincing students that texts are un-intimidating and that critical reading is an unthreatening process of merely examining specific dominant codes within texts that allow for predisposed meanings to occur. I rather tell students that texts are indeed monstrous and the process of critical reading is undeniably what Derrida terms “a monster.” Considering then that a monster rears its head in the composition classroom, it is necessary to learn one possible way students may approach the wide-ranging process of critical reading. In this brief article, I attempt to discuss Jacques Derrida’s definition of the “monster” and how this definition may be applied to a practice of critically reading texts, appropriately expressed by the memorable acronym, “A MONSTER.”

A text “which appears for the first time,” may not only present difficulties of understanding for students, but may also elicit fear; such a text may be considered what Derrida terms “a monster” (Derrida 386). This unrecognizable text does not necessarily allow an expected and familiar meaning to occur, but rather “produces a language of its own, in itself, which while continuing to work through translation, emerges at a given moment as a monster, a monstrous mutation without tradition or a normative precedent” (Derrida 385). Because a precedent is not yet established, when students undertake arriving at a stable meaning, such a text “frightens [them] precisely because no anticipation had prepared [them] to identify this figure” (Derrida 386). Students are fearful because they risk being “without power” when encountering new texts; as Derrida explains, “the notion of the monster is rather difficult to deal with, to get a hold on, to stabilize” (Derrida 385). Despite an initial sense of fear and a sense of powerlessness when considering difficult texts, students may in fact begin accustoming themselves to the monstrosity.

When faced with a monster, students do not have to remain frozen in action by a Medusa’s gaze, for instance, but may instead initiate the process of “normalization.” Derrida explains this process when he states:

But as soon as one perceives a monster […] one begins to domesticate it, one begins […]to compare it to the norms, to analyze it, consequently to master whatever could be frightening in this figure of the monster. And the movement of accustoming oneself, but also of legitimation, and, consequently, of normalization has already begun. (Derrida 386)

Derrida explains that students may initially become aware of how to normalize or domesticate any appearance of monstrosity by analyzing it. Analyzing the monster potentially entails examining what may characterize it.

For Derrida, the monster is characterized as an amalgam, or a hybrid, and as such, students must acquaint themselves with the monster by a similarly heterogeneous and thus monstrous approach. Derrida maintains, “a monster may be obviously a composite figure of heterogeneous organisms that are grafted onto each other. This graft, this hybridization, this composition that puts heterogeneous bodies together may be called a monster” (Derrida 385). Because the monster is a hybrid, and exposes the myth of a unified body, the movement of accustoming oneself to the monster may involve an analytical process characterized by a similarly varied composition. Derrida explains this process of hybrid normalization when he states, “one must conduct not only a theoretical analysis; one must produce what in fact looks like a discursive monster so that the analysis will be a practical effect” (Derrida 386).

Producing such a discursive monster necessarily entails an analytical process whereby students may explore various aspects of a text and examining their relationships. An effective practice to initiate exploration involves the process of questioning a text’s various aspects.

The below list of various rhetorical contextual questions may be grafted together to create “A MONSTER.” This “monster” analysis is perhaps one possible attempt of what Derrida terms a “practical” theoretical analysis. A composition student may begin the process of dissecting the monstrous text by means of considering the below guided questions, and attempt answering the questions in an answer log, or even in the text’s marginalia for visual reference. Not all of the questions may be relevant to every monstrous text; composition students are encouraged to forge a different set of questions when encountering the next text.
Audience and Appeals

1. Who is the intended or unintentional audience for the text?

2. What type of audience does the text create or have a need for?

3. What characterizes the audience? (These characterizations may include language, geographical locations, gender, ethnicity, values, motivations, age, political affiliation, religion, educational background, profession, physical differences, etc.)

4. What types of appeals (logos, ethos, and pathos) are operative in the text?

5. Now consider yourself as a particular audience; how does your particular background affect your reading of the text?

 
Mode

1. What is the particular mode or aim of argument functioning in the text? (These modes may include: to persuade, inform, analyze, request, document, explain, evaluate, instruct, convince, explore, mediate, negotiate, entertain, etc.)

Organization

1. In what ways is the text organized (circular, linear, a combination, or neither)?

2. Where does the text indicate new sections?

3. Where does the text point to new main ideas?

4. Where in the text do the main ideas occur?

Necessity/Need

1. What are the overall needs or purposes of the text?

2. What rhetorical context seemed to have prompted the need of the text?

 
Style and Sources

1. What is the text’s tone (satirical, humorous, ironic, whimsical, formal, causal, technical, angry, didactic, etc.)?

2. What types of figurative language (tropes and schemes) are operative in the text?

3. What images or vocabulary recur throughout the text?

4. What kind of language occurs in the text (standard, slang, sexist, technical, abstract, concrete, obsolete, archaic, regional, foreign, etc.)?

5. What kinds of sources are cited and what are their dates and contexts?

6. Who are the authors of the text’s sources?

Thesis and Theory

1. What is the author’s thesis and where is it located?

2. What are the main ideas of the text?

3. Can you identify a particular critical “theory” that perhaps informs the text?

Evidence

1. What types of evidence does the text possess (descriptive, statistical, interviews, personal, etc.)?

2. Is the evidence credible, detailed, relevant, specific, asserted, or explained?

 

Reasoning and Re-reading

1. Are there any logical fallacies present in the text’s reasoning?

2. What type of reasoning (inductive, deductive, or both) is present in the text?

3. What underlying assumptions are operative in the text?

4. Have you re-read the text not necessarily teleologically from beginning to end?

 

 
The monster analysis does not prescribe a definitive or even repeatable approach to critical thinking, but instead aims to allow composition students to begin engaging in a memorable process of critical reading. Many students indicate that it is rather difficult even knowing how to begin the process of critical reading. This analysis is merely one possible simple approach students may consider when initially attempting the practice of critical reading. Not only is the process an effective method allowing students to begin critically thinking, but the acronym is highly valuable. The acronym is effective because it is literally memorable when students do indeed encounter a monstrous text.

The outlined “A MONSTER” inquiring approach to critical reading makes it possible for composition students to begin their process of engaging with difficult texts. Even though the questions of the monster analysis are somewhat repeatable, the actual answers always differ and remain contextual to each monstrous text. Monstrous texts do rebuke enclosure and any systematizing efforts on behalf of their captor; however, they easily lend themselves to student inquiry and provide students a step in the direction of accessibility.

Works Cited
Derrida, Jacques. Points…Interviews, 1974-1994. Trans. Peggy Kamuf, et al. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995.

Filed under 2002 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review – Reading Culture: Context for Critical Reading and Writing, 4th ed., by Kimberley Norlund

September 3, 2001 by Leave a Comment

Reading Culture by Diana George and John Trimbur is not a how-to text on writing but rather a how-to text on thinking critically of American culture.  As a visually stimulating reader reflecting everyday encounters through articles and illustrations, Reading Culture succeeds in capturing its audience’s attention.  George and Trimbur’s idea is “to treat contemporary American culture as a vast research project‑‑to understand its ways of life from the inside as you live and observe them” (3).  The ten chapters include such topics as Generations, Schooling, Work, Images, Style, History, and Multicultural America.  These topics give students a chance to read persuasive arguments on such matters as they might encounter in life, not just in the classroom.  George and Trimbur explain, “One of our central aims is to provide students with reading and writing assignments in their familiar ways of life, and to understand how these ways of life fit into the diverse, mass-mediated, multicultural realities of contemporary America” (xxv).  The authors do succeed with this aim.

For teachers of a persuasive argument class, this text would be a good primary text.  The authors have made the text extremely flexible for the classroom by providing alternate groupings of the articles under the sections “Alternate Contents” and “Rhetorical Contents.”  Alternate Contents assembles articles under the following headings: Journalism and Popular Writing, Academic and Critical Writing, and Literary Essays and Fiction. Rhetorical Contents uses heading such as narration, description, exposition/informative writing, etc., to group articles.  In this way, teachers are free to have students move around the text as needed depending on the topic being taught.  Also, there are suggestions for reading, discussion, and writing with almost every reading.

This text also offers several other features not necessarily included in other comparable texts.  The Visual Culture sections show students different images such as billboards or newspaper pictures to analyze and interpret. The Fieldwork sections in most chapters offer students a chance to observe and interview people about culture in a broad sense.  the Mining the Archive sections are especially helpful for students to learn to use resources such as the Web and the library.  These sections give a historical significance to the topic being discussed.  One assignment might be for students to find old textbooks in the library and write about the different cultural norms present in the past and how they have changed today.  Most chapters also offer a section called Perspectives, which shows paired readings of a particular topic.  These readings show students how authors can have different ideas or thoughts about a subject and how they write persuasively in each case.

Another nice point about this text is that it offers a companion website (www.awl.com/george/).  This is not a duplication of the text but rather a complement to it.  The readings found here are different than those in the text yet they cover the same topics.  There are links to locations mentioned in the readings as well as helpful sites for students and teachers.  It also has capabilities for teachers to use this as a discussion board and a place students can submit reading responses online.

The readings on the website as well as in the text itself are quite interesting.  Such topics as daytime talk shows, school shootings, and “Goths in Disneyland” certainly grab students’ attention.  These readings may seem like fluff to some instructors but students do deal with these issues every day.  These topics are part of their culture here in America.  This text will help them look at this culture critically rather than to accept it at face value.  They will do this through writing persuasive arguments about their thoughts on the articles.  Although this text does not explicitly teach writing, students will learn to develop ideas and arguments as they explore culture in America.

Filed under 2001 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review – Media Journal: Reading and Writing About Popular Culture1999 by Marnie Binfield

February 10, 2001 by Leave a Comment

I love to dance.  Old School Funk, Soul and Hip Hop music are my genres of choice.  When I get on the dance floor and start to move, the world melts away and I feel as though I am pure music, pure motion.  I feel most truly free when I am dancing.  I have searched for the words to explain my love for “Booty Clubs” to my feminist friends who see only misogyny and violence in Hip Hop.  I want them to understand; I want to explain; I want to share the pleasure I take in Hip Hop music.  In order to do so, I must first come to my own understanding of why I love Hip Hop music.  Like all music for which I reserve a special place in my heart, Hip Hop came to my rescue at a time when I desperately needed it.  My experiences with Hip Hop music are extremely personal, offering me a well of emotion to draw upon as I cast a critical eye towards Hip Hop music as a text and begin to make sense of these experiences and to phrase them so that they make sense to others.

This is the task that Media Journal: Reading and Writing About Popular Culture sets before students.  When I first glanced through Media Journaland found readings from a range of writers including Lester Bangs, Umberto Eco, and Gloria Steinem, I thought, “This is a textbook that has the potential to capture students’ imaginations.”  The editors have included readings that speak to student’s experiences without sacrificing quality. There are readings on wearing blue jeans, admiring Michael Jordan, the role of Playboy Magazine in defining masculinity, professional wrestling and casual Fridays in the workplace.   The selection of readings, as well as the text of the introduction illustrate the editors commitment to understanding issues of race, ethnicity, class, gender and so on. While addressing a broad range of media issues and supporting a broad definition of media, the readings also represent an array of writing styles.  Thus, Media Journaloffers students a variety of examples of “good” writing about media.

The editors of Media Journal assume that students are intimately involved with media.  They note in the preface that “almost all of us are immersed everyday in a world of texts – of newspapers, magazines, radio, television, movies, videos, billboards, flyers, menus, pop songs, buttons, logos, printed T-shirts and caps, memos, directions, homework assignments, web pages and e-mail postings, and even, on occasion, books…(ix).”  Although the editors “believe strongly that good writing stems from experience, [they] are most interested in the students experiences as intellectuals (ix).”  Thus, they draw on the media as a way for students to write from their own experience while also writing about texts and ideas.

The editors attempt to help students become critical readers of media by offering an array of challenging and thought provoking readings.  In addition, each reading is followed by a series of questions divided into three categories: Coming to Terms, Reading as a Writer, and Writing Criticism. Each set of questions prompts students to “read” the text from a slightly perspective and, finally, to engage the writer in a dialogue of sorts.  The readings are geared towards an undergraduate, media literate student.  The editors assume that students are intelligent and engaged and that students will shape the class through their own interests and opinions.

The editors of Media Journal view writing as a process.  Although they resist imposing formulas on the writer, they explain that they find the following distinctions valuable for developing critical writing skills.  According to the editors, writing presents the writer with three problems: fluency, persuasion, and correctness.  Thus, the writing process can be described as a process of drafting (which addresses fluency, finding the words to say what the writer wants to say), revising (organizing and phrasing the text persuasively), and editing.  Furthermore, the editors recommend soliciting responses from readers to test how effectively the text has achieved its goals.  The editors stress that “the activities of drafting, revising and editing often blur into one another” (9).  Nonetheless, these distinctions allow the writer to deal with one problem at a time and to avoid the block that is created by trying to deal with all the problems that writing presents at once.

For this reason, Media Journal has an array of assignments that begin with keeping a media journal.  There are journal assignments that ask the student to address specific topics.  Others ask students to reflect upon their own uses of and exposure to media.  The media journal is designed as a space for students to brainstorm, take notes and to begin drafting.  The thinking, planning and organizing that take place in the journal will then lead, ideally, to the drafting of longer, more complicated texts.

Media Journal is an exceptional textbook that allows freedom for both students and teachers.  The readings are arranged in alphabetical order so that teachers are free to shape the course as they envision it.  The book is designed as a framework on which to build a writing class, a “rough draft” that can be “revised” and rearranged to meet the goals of a specific class. The editors of Media Journal have made an effort to avoid imposing formulas and dictates on its readers.  They offer an impeccable selection of reading material and questions and leave the “consumers” to make their own meanings from them.

Filed under 2001 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,