Review of Calibrated Peer Review Pilot by Judith Annicchiarico

August 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

I’m desperate for tools and strategies to help me get my job done and still live a life. Like many other writing instructors over the past twenty years have done, I’ve tried out scores of promising technology solutions that looked like they might help me do my job more effectively or efficiently, whether that means helping students to apply concepts they’re learning, or freeing up time for me to apply to course planning, attending meetings, and grading stacks of papers. No Luddite, I. From building my own Web sites and coaching lit students to develop their arguments in Daedalus integrated computer classrooms in the 90s, to creating interactive online lectures in the 00s, I have adopted, adapted, and more often than not abandoned more technological strategies for supplementing writing instruction than I can recall off hand.

Regardless of past disappointments, I had high hopes for the programs coming out a few years ago that promised well-managed and statistically proven tools for students to “workshop” (peer review) their writing outside of the classroom, on their own time, freeing up time for instructors to teach their actual subject material, rather than how to write about it. Even if their subject material is “how to write,” instructors could theoretically use their classroom time to instruct, and let students workshop on their own time using one of these programs.

Read more of this post

Filed under 2012 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , ,

Textbook Review – The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader by Maud Gale

August 14, 2004 by Leave a Comment

In her essay “Taking TV’s “‘War of Words’” Too Literally,”1 Georgetown University linguist Deborah Tannen examines the rise of what she calls the “argument culture.” That argument is a significant part of American culture today is clear whenever we turn on the television set. Talking heads that populate the airwaves with ardent speakers can be found on various talk shows, especially cable’s quasi-news programs such as MSNBC’s Hardball or CNN’s Crossfire. These speakers vehemently proclaim their opinions about the big issues of our day, aggressively arguing their position on everything from abortion, to gay marriage, to terrorism and its causes. These programs and their speakers engage in the kind of aggressive verbal swordplay that Tannen refers to, and while it may be entertaining, as viewers we don’t really get a sense of how well reasoned the espoused arguments are.

In fact, most savvy viewers soon realize that the verbal combatants featured on cable TV are engaged in only one kind of argumentation: persuasion. These speakers want to persuade us to see their point of view, and will employ whatever rhetorical device necessary to sway our opinion, including, perhaps, being less than truthful in detailing the facts of a given dispute, or employing strident emotional appeals that disregard any sense of reason. But there is more than one form of argumentation than persuasion, despite the fact that most people, and especially college students, are rarely conscious of those other forms. How can students learn about and differentiate between methods and aims of argumentation so that they can become knowledgeable participants in public debates? How do they avoid falling into the argument culture trap, a trap that seemingly values only confrontation and not genuine dialogue? What can college instructors do to help mold students into reflective thinkers, giving them the skills to recognize spurious arguments when they see them? Well, the first step in answering these questions is to introduce college students to Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell’s excellent college-level reader, The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader.2

The Aims of Argument takes a holistic approach toward argumentation that mirrors the structure of James E. Kinneavy’s 1969 essay “The Basic Aims of Discourse.”3 Crusius and Channell have developed a textbook designed around the purposes or aims of argument, which they define as to inquire, to convince, to persuade, and to negotiate. The Aims of Argument is philosophically and theoretically based upon an epistemic pedagogy that encompasses Chris Anson’s view that college level writing and reading is a reflective process that seeks to develop well-rounded, thoughtful readers and writers. It is a process that works toward the notion that “[a]n idea or belief is just a resting place in the quest for Truth. It is the importance that the learner gives to the process of this question, and not the Truth itself, that marks him or her as intellectually mature.”4 Truth is provisional and must be tested and challenged through a dialectical process of inquiry that weighs all sides of an argument. As Crusius and Channell explicitly state, it is their opinion that the “Truth is not simply “‘out there’” in some wordless realm waiting to be discovered; rather . . . we discover or uncover truth as we grapple with a controversial issue and that it results largely from how we interpret ourselves and our world.” From this process, then, knowledge is gained and, based upon a approach that views “[a]rgumentation [as] a mode or means of discourse,”5 students can be taught to be reflective and knowledgeable participants in public discourse, learning through the practice of critical reading and writing, to avoid (and recognize) the ubiquitous argument culture that permeates American society today. Central to this pedagogical and theoretical framework is the author’s emphasis on inquiry or research as the primary aim in argumentation. The text, however, is structured in such a way that the student does not encounter inquiry until Part Two, Chapter 6, “Looking for Some Truth: Arguing to Inquire.” Instead, Crusius and Channell focus the first five chapters on what they call “basic training.” Chapter 1 begins with a definition of argument and rhetoric, followed by a detailed essay example, which is then followed by an important and valuable section on the “Four Criteria of Mature Reasoning,” a section that stresses the need for a thoughtful and reasoned approach to argumentation. At this point, the four aims of argument are introduced to the student. Chapter 2 launches the student into reading arguments and how to analyze them, followed by a Chapter that further guides students through the analysis process. Chapter 4, “Reading and Writing about Visual Arguments,” is especially interesting in that it incorporates the kind of media-based arguments that most students encounter in their daily lives. In Chapter 5, students are led through the process of writing research-based arguments, which includes detailed discussions and helpful guidelines on finding, evaluating, and using sources.

Part Two begins with Chapter 6, the unit on inquiry. The authors have built this chapter around the exploratory essay. Piloting students through a writing project recursively designed in three major parts, the authors have developed a sequenced, step-by-step writing process that allows instructors to take their young writers through the initial inquiry process, including detailed suggestions on how to come up with topic ideas, how to use dialogue to question opinions (exemplified in articles from Newsweek), and how to conduct a critical analysis of a written text. If desired, instructors can utilize the blue-boxed “Follow Through” inserts that follow each discussion to guide their students through sequenced assignments. For example, “Follow Through” tasks encourage students to write a dialogue on their topic, to engage in small group discussions about those dialogues, to engage in pre-writing exercises, or to write an evaluation of a source. The blue-boxed “Questions for Inquiry” guideline is particularly useful, offering both the instructor and the student specific, detailed questions with which to analyze any given text.

Crusius and Channell believe that inquiry, based on Aristotelian and Platonic dialectic, should be taught as a foundational skill, an aim separate from persuasion, convincing, or negotiating, because it teaches students to “think through their arguments and imagine reader reaction.” It serves to teach students how to “engage in constructive dialogue,” that allows them to think thoroughly about their positions and received opinions, reaching an understanding that is “crucial to convincing and persuading.” Moreover, inquiry goes “hand-in-hand with research which . . . normally precedes writing in other aims of argument.” 6 And to help students get started with research, the authors have included two large sections incorporating a variety of texts that offer differing perspectives on major issues that the authors have found the students to be most interested in: class, race, and gender. These sections encompass Part Three, and specifically focus on the family and on terrorism. Part Four includes a collection of essays on topics ranging from Feminism to Contemporary Culture. The Aims of Argument closes out the textbook with an Appendix on proofreading and editing, and includes a glossary for good measure.

As a mixed reader and rhetoric, The Aims of Argument has much to offer the instructor. Based on the premise that reading and writing, and writing argumentation specifically, is the best way a student gains knowledge about him or herself and the world around them (thus enabling them to fully participate in the public debates of our time), the textbook offers an effective and constructive sequence-based approach to teaching writing. The book is somewhat limited, however, by its very specificity. Unless you are in a program offering a semester or quarter unit specifically geared toward argumentation, The Aims of Argument will not serve. Instruction on genre-specific writing or creative writing, for example, two areas that many instructors may wish to incorporate into their classes, is left out. And given the size of the textbook, especially considering the inclusion of the casebooks, the cost of the text may be prohibitive given its narrow focus. However, The Aims of Argument is available in a shortened version without the casebooks (seefor information on this shortened version and other instructional aids). Overall, The Aims of Argument is a thorough and well-designed textbook. It effectively guides students through the process of learning how to develop successful written arguments, how to conduct meaningful and useful research, and how to hone their reasoning skills. And instructors will value the textbook’s wonderfully practical assignment sequences, useful examples, and abundant readings. I highly recommend The Aims of Argument for instructors interested in teaching the art of argument.

1 Deborah Tannen. “Taking TV’s “‘War of Words’” Too Literally.” Exploring Language. Ed. Gary Goshgarian. 10th ed. New York: Pearson, 2004.
2 Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003.
3 James E. Kinneavy. “The Basic Aims of Discourse.” College Composition and Communication. 20.4 (December 1969): 297-304.
4 Anson, Chris M., ed. Writing and Response: Theory, Practice and Research. Chapter 16: “Response Styles and Ways of Knowing.” Urbana: NCTE, 1989.

Filed under 2004 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Textbook Review – Writing From Sources: 4th Edition: Brenda Spatt by Richard Hal Hannon

August 10, 2004 by Leave a Comment

Many instructors of writing would perhaps argue about what freshmen college students lack the most these days in terms of developing a writing foundation that will enable them to manage the multitude of papers they will undoubtedly write throughout their college careers. Some might say “style and syntax,” while others would certainly say “the ability to hold a well-founded opinion.” But, as the author of Writing from Sources points out, the greatest deficiency is perhaps in the area of pulling information from disparate sources in order to synthesize a single, cohesive text. That is precisely the stated goal of this recently revised and updated (fourth edition) rhetoric/reader textbook, which includes additions such as understanding internet sources and using the latest MLA and APA documentation styles.

To teach these “analytical, organizational, and synthetic skills necessary for academic writing,” the textbook has broken the daunting task of writing a research article down into its smallest steps, which seem carefully scaffolded, if even at times inane. Take for example the advice in chapter one that reminds the student in red italics that: “When you outline, you are identifying the main points of a chapter or an essay…” (37). With this newly acquired knowledge, the student then proceeds to the exercise where they are asked, you guessed it, to outline an essay. Which is not to say that this is an unnecessary skill; yet, the formulaic exercise—I did this as a seventh grader some fifteen years ago—will undoubtedly convey a message that writing is not so much a process as it is monotonous. Still, loosely taking the advice of the miniscule, accompanying Instructor’ s Manual, it would perhaps be okay to breeze through this section (and others) as a way to abbreviate the ambitious 467 pages— expected to be covered within a 16-week semester.

Yet, for the beginning instructor, this textbook may be an extremely valuable tool, as it contains all the material necessary for an entire semester of freshman English Composition: readings, exercises, and writing assignments. The sequences themselves are set up in such a clear-cut manner that much of pain involved in lesson planning is removed. Throughout the semester students will complete four major writing tasks: 5th week, a single source essay; 7th week, a multiple-source essay; 12th week, a first draft of the research essay; 14th week, a final draft. This organized structure of major tasks, combined with the exercises and readings, which as the author notes (and he is not entirely bluffing), are both diverse and interesting, will ensure that a semester of college writing will not have been entirely wasted.

In fact, many of the exercises seem pertinent, and could be, at the very least, a valuable supplement for even veteran freshman composition teachers. Chapter two provides a useful task that not only asks students to introduce authored sources into their texts, but also provides a long list of words (other than “says”) with which to do this, such as: argues, establishes, asserts. This chapter also provides the somewhat meaningful advice, again in red italics, that “the citation should suggest the relationship between your own ideas (in the previous sentences) and the statement that you are about to quote” (109). While this may need some explaining to the students, the instructor is at least reminded to talk about details that might otherwise be overlooked in courses that attempt to have the students churn out piles of writing at the expense of learning something from it. And here is the real success of this textbook: the tasks are manageable and the goals realistic.

Obviously, what is omitted in this book is writing strategies for any genre other than the research essay; as such, the students using this text won’t experience the subtle moves from writing for a smaller audience—themselves or their peers, perhaps—to communicating to a broader populace. The only audience that seems to matter here is the teacher. What this approach also ignores is the way that various forms of writing are connected to each other. Personal narrative, for example, could be addressed in order to develop the skills of leaving gaps, foreshadowing, and using specific details to create both interest and credibility—tools that could help the student to create a livelier research essay. So, even though the student is being given samples of writing that is provocative, if this textbook is followed to the letter, don’t expect your students to write a paper that would be of much interest to anyone. In fact, no deep analysis on the methods of creating a narrative structure that leads the reader is ever addressed. This book is painting by numbers.

The most dissatisfying aspect here is the way that you want this textbook to really work, to have it not only function as a “tool” for creating a specific genre of paper that students need in order to succeed academically, but to have it exude a more epistemic approach by perhaps examining how the process of collecting and synthesizing research is also about personally making meaning out of all the information constantly collapsing on us individually and as a society.

In the end, then, what you have is a textbook that utilizes a fairly traditional, mechanical approach, all the while subjecting the student to such truths as: “Playing the lottery is not a subject that lends itself to lengthy or abstract discussion…” (232)— apparently the author has never considered the psychological devastation that occurs when a twenty-something year-old man is forced to determine whether to spend his last five bucks for the week on lotto tickets, cockroach killer, or pain-relief pills. But, even if the exercises here are dry and overly confident in their authority, and the move-naming vocabulary somewhat decrepit (“brainstorming” as prewriting, for example), the scaffolded lessons, decent reader—themed so that students may use it instead of the library if the instructor wishes—and fairly realistic goals, make Writing from Sources a good beginning teacher’s text and perhaps a reasonable resource for veterans.

Filed under 2004 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CyberReader, 2nd ed. By Victor Vitanza Reviewed by Anna Marin

May 24, 2004 by Leave a Comment

It seems Victor Vitanza asked a Magic 8-Ball to see if the world of college composition courses would merge enough with the virtual world to warrant a textbook to be written. Apparently, all signs pointed to yes, and so was born CyberReader. Vitanza asserts from the beginning of his anthology of cyberReadings that a pragmatic foray into writing within the virtual world is also an existentialist foray into realizing “self-identities in terms of human-cum-virtual bodies in new spaces in an ever-changing technological- informational society” (viii). The question he poses throughout the book is whether the rules which govern an individual in the tangible linear real world where we live still hold true in the multi-planed cyber world where the physical body is not there to exert pressure and take on physical consequences of actions. Also, if the physical is not present, how does one determine identity in a place where true personas are shared, true information is exchanged, and true communities are established. Although staunchly pro-cyber, by selecting readings that argue both from a conservative angle and from a dare-devil approach, Vitanza recognizes the natural trepidation of his student readers as they cross from the real into what might be the unknown. What he does not effectively translate is how writing fits into the journey.

Although I would recommend CyberReader for its texts, I am skeptical of its use as a rhetoric in the classroom. At the end of each reading selection are questions and writing assignments for “rereading,” a pointed cue that this book is intended for students. Unfortunately, these writing tasks are dull and facile at best. At worst, they do nothing at all to acknowledge the goal of the book: to cross the boundary between real and virtual, and ask oneself about personal identity and how it communes with others online. Most of the posed writing tasks simply ask students to write a reaction to the reading, rarely making them actually interact in the virtual community or interface about which they have just read. To Vitanza’s credit, however, the textbook holds strong for a more adventurous and perhaps experienced teacher who will dutifully devise her own assignments. The meaty texts do provide ample fodder for anyone willing to take the challenge.

From the introduction Vitanza immediately addresses the potentially wide scope of readership of his textbook. He offers us two methods by which to step into the cyber world. The first is the conservative “Bill Gates” way, which gives definitions of unfamiliar words and an explanation of the virtual world in the linear step-by-step process taken from the real world. “Bill” explains the “book-to-human-to-computer interface” by comparison to the “Holodeck” from T.V.’s Star Trek (xv), a fictional place with imagery that mimics reality. It gives the reader an option to view the cyber world as a fictional place as well, but that which is taking on more real characteristics each day. The other method by which to use the book is the “Timothy Leary” way, where the book is a surfboard by which to ride the higher rising technological waves of the future (xvi). “Tim” uses jargon already known by those of the “New Breed…psychedelic (cyberdelic), super high-tech, with interest in smart drugs, brain machines, and the Internet” (xvii). Vitanza takes a risk putting his readers into two very distinct categories: the initiated and the non-. However, “Tim” reminds all readers that, regardless of their cyber experience, CyberReader functions as a textbook, which even the “Bill Gates” followers might be willing to swallow: TFYQA. “To think for yourself; question authority!” (xvii).

Luckily for our daring teacher, the selection of texts does provide a way for students to question authority…or to decide not to. The topics range from virtual communities to sexual politics to censorship, all of which occur equally in both the real and cyber worlds. Besides providing definitions of new terms at the end of each chapter, Vitanza also includes a variety of authors and text formats throughout the book. Neil Postman and Camille Paglia, two social critics of different generations, argue print culture versus electronic culture in “She Wants Her TV! He Wants His Book.” The format “is that of a forum, comparable to the hacker’s forum” (233), only the two authors are really sitting down at dinner in a posh New York City restaurant. An excerpt from Douglas Rushkoff’s book Cyberia, as well as the fiction piece “The Library of Babel” by Jose Luis Borges, also appears in CyberReader.

The article most closely linked with the polemic posed by Vitanza is Raymond Kurzweil’s “The Future of Libraries,” which appears in chapter 5: “Virtual Books and Libraries.” Kurzweil logically argues that the demise of tangible print media is not only inevitable but natural by way of the technological life cycle. Seven stages are identified starting with precursor, then invention, development, maturity, false pretenders, obsolescence, and finally antiquity. At stage four, false pretenders, a new form of technology (in its own precursor stage) emerges to posit itself against the old form. At stage five of the current technology, a real threat begins where the new starts to overtake the old (291-92). This explains the real-time debate between print and non-print media, between the real and virtual worlds.

Vitanza aspired to write the book which bridges the gap. He not only seems to agree with but also wants to prove real Kurzweil’s thesis that electronic media is usurping the role of print. Unfortunately, he falls far short of his goal. Vitanza knows that at the moment of printing, CyberReader is already obsolete, so he assures readers that “the real ‘book’ is out there on the Web, and it changes every nanosecond” (viii). Perhaps a new calculation of nanosecond has been reached: the website has not been updated since September 18, 1998. So far, print media and the real world in which they reside are not yet obsolete. It is just CyberReader might be soon due to its tentative place in the composition and rhetoric classroom without guidance from the rare SuperTeacher.

Filed under 2004 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Textbook Review of Literacies by Christine Gajoli

March 21, 2004 by Leave a Comment

Students are most likely to speak when they believe they will be heard, and they speak better when they have something worthwhile to say. The premise behind Literacies is that the same holds true for writing. Subtitled “Reading, Writing, Interpretation,” Literacies is essentially a reader with an edge—an agenda of exalting the status of student writers’ voices by encouraging them to read, think, and write critically and contextually. It is a textbook rich in resources yet simultaneously designed for flexibility, making it appropriate for a significant range of college classrooms.

Literacies posits student writers as learners and contributors, teachers as facilitators and guides. Key to Literacies pedagogical approach is its editors’ notion of reading and writing as “conversational processes” (xiii). The editors are explicit about this understanding of language and interpretation and structure their reader around it. The purpose of the text is to involve students in the meaningful interpretation of text analysis and knowledge formation. The editors see students as people with something to say, to contribute, and reminiscent of George Hillocks, they believe in engaging students in the process of inquiry. (xiv, xvii-xix)

For the editors of Literacies, a mastery of interpretation is of paramount importance. They urge students to contend with, build upon, and “shape their own meanings” from texts. They argue that, “readers who inquire and establish connections between what they know and what they read create an opportunity for a new understanding of themselves and others” (xix). The primacy given to interpretation makes active reading and critical thinking necessary precursors—or at least adjuncts—to successful writing. Literacies is a reader designed for college freshmen or sophomores. Along with a collection of forty-nine thematically organized readings, the textbook contains reading questions, “invitations to write,” assignment sequences, a brief guide to MLA and APA citation styles, and short biographies of the authors represented.

As evidenced by the heavy emphasis placed on interpretation as well as knowledge formation and ideological refinement, Literacies is grounded in an epistemic approach to composition. Both reading and writing are seen as purveyors of knowledge and understanding. The editors continually exhort students to use writing for learning, urging them to believe that they “can make knowledge, not just recall it” (xxvii). Although the editors are firm believers in the social construction of texts, their approach is not intended to reveal an untenable, repressive political-educational system that marginalizes students (Guide to Teaching xv). They are interested instead in giving credence to students’ individual learning experiences and participation in reading and writing “conversations.” Still, an emphasis on questioning texts and the ways in which the language of others influences us as readers and writers places this text on the border between epistemic and social-epistemic philosophies.

The readings included in Literacies are varied in discipline, style, and agenda, but they share certain importance characteristics. All of the readings are open to multiple interpretations, deal with social or academic issues, and relate to knowledge or experience in some way. The readings are conducive to discussion by students and can be used to reconsider one another’s positions. They expose students to a diversity of writing styles and to issues that persist across academic disciplines and social life in general. Although the language of the readings themselves is not insurmountably difficult, the complexity of the material makes close reading, careful rereading, and teacher support crucial. (Guide to Teaching xxvii-xxix) Although the book packs in forty-nine readings, comparatively few could be effectively used in any one semester. By asking students to write in response to questions before and after reading as well as to write several longer papers, teachers using Literacies can promote thorough analysis and interaction with a limited number of texts rather than a more peripheral handling of many readings. This is the approach advocated by the textbook’s editors. In a class focused on composition, placing an emphasis on the development and revision of focused student texts, which respond to a few carefully selected readings, should prove more fruitful than attempting to even approximate the scope of readings represented in Literacies.

The text includes a number of assignment sequences based on small groups of readings involving similar themes. Examples include: “The Social Contexts of Literacy,” “Objects and Subjects in the Academy,” and “Family in Context.” Each of these sequences includes four or five texts and three essay prompts. The prompts ask students to use combinations of readings to develop explanations, forge connections, or consider issues in complex ways. The essays are more sophisticated than simple “compare-and-contrast” essays. They ask students to apply the ideas of one author to another, to envision the reaction of one writer to another, or to use several texts to examine an abstract idea.

The editors explain the purpose of the essays to their students, arguing that “sequenced assignments help you participate in the self-reflexive literacy practices actively encouraged by the essays and questions in Literacies” (761). The notion that students can and will write “like” the authors represented in the textbook is important for the editors’ epistemological and pedagogical approach. They want students to interact with texts, to challenge them, and to see themselves as writers—if not of similar caliber at least of analogous validity. The assignment sequences are also designed to direct students focus to the writing process rather than on the creation of error-free prose. They impart to students that “when you write essays in a sequence, you recognize that writing is not so much about producing correct answers as it is about taking part in a process of understanding, a process open to change as you encounter new information or new experiences” (761-762). If this is not enough to win students’ favor, they also point out the practical benefits of using the assignment sequences, arguing that “extended work with a set of ideas resembles the work you will be doing in your academic major and in your career, so the interpretative challenges you face in the sequences have a special realistic value” (xxvi).

All of this indicates that learning with Literacies—at least in the editors’ ideal case— would involve reading and reacting to texts through class discussion, peer group work, and writing. Students would combine their own experience and knowledge with interpretation of the readings. Multiple steps and activities would be combined with a focus on the process of writing. Although students would typically be writing “essays,” they would not be the much criticized “five-paragraph theme” essays. In fact, many of the papers would involve using techniques of inquiry and research. Teachers less interested in using the questions, prompts, and sequences provided in the textbook could certainly have students branch into other genres of writing as well. For example, after reading Scott Russell Sanders’ “The Men We Carry in Our Minds” or Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman,” students might write a memoir of their own. The readings are rich and adaptable enough for teachers to create diverse assignments with specific purposes in mind.

In whatever form, assignments based on Literacies are likely to improve students’ reading and critical thinking skills as well as their writing. By using all parts of the textbook, students can gain an appreciation for the authority of their own texts and voices. Although mechanical skills are not a focus of the text, the “Invitations to Write” do encourage students to consider the kinds of errors they make and to attempt to correct them for themselves. The editors claim not to be impressed by heuristics, so tight methods and processes might be something missed by using this textbook. However, the “Invitations to Write” are meant to serve as tools, and could possibly be seen as the sort of heuristic devices the editors profess to avoid. In addition, new teachers or those looking for a ready-made course might be somewhat overwhelmed by the project involved in designing a course with Literacies. Although alive with possibilities, teachers must carefully consider which texts to use when planning a semester-long course. The Guide to Teaching with Literacies provides assistance and a sample teaching cycle; nonetheless, creativity and flexibility are needed to make this text work successfully.

Literacies is a complex reader that offers students many opportunities for inquiry, engagement, and development. The textbook draws from the stores of process theory and social constructivism, combining them in a way that gives authority to the voices of students. Although much depends on the creativity, demeanor, and specific curriculum developed by the individual teacher using Literacies, the book provides ample advice and opportunity for students to grow as readers, writers, and thinkers.

Filed under 2004 Tagged with , , , , , ,

Review – Literacies: A Textbook of Empowerment by Cassandra Gonzalez

November 14, 2002 by Leave a Comment

In her article, “Multicultural Classrooms, Monocultural Teachers,” Terry Dean discusses the plight of both teacher and student in regards to multiculturalism and the often problematic classroom situations it entails.  Dean’s primary claim is that “with increasing cultural diversity in classrooms, teachers need to structure learning experiences that both help students write their way into the university and help teachers learn their way into student cultures” (23).  It is essential for Dean that because the multicultural classroom is becoming somewhat of the norm, teachers need to approach their classrooms with the mentality that the learning experience should be a collaborative effort between themselves and their students; dealing with it cannot be a one-sided effort on the students’ part.  For Dean, the main problem that occurs in these classrooms is the cultural dissonance that “minority” students experience when they enter the academic “mainstream” world.  As incoming freshmen, they must learn not only the discourse of the academic world like the rest of their peers, but they must also become familiarized with the culture of “mainstream” America; a culture that, up until the point of entering a college classroom, has been somewhat at a distance for these students.
There is a certain sense of separation brought on by this cultural dissonance, and for a lot of these multicultural students, learning becomes a hurdle, and their performance in the classroom is affected on many different levels.  Whether it is language differences, or even just different expectations and assumptions about classroom dynamics and student responsibilities, multicultural students are left in the dark when it comes to the unique culture of the university classroom.  Dean makes an interesting observation about these students pointing out that “working-class and farm children must struggle to acquire the academic culture that has been passed on by osmosis to the middle and upper classes.  The very fact that working-class and farm children must laboriously acquire what others come by so naturally is taken as another sign of inferiority” (25).  Because they must start from scratch, so to speak, multicultural students can often become discouraged and frustrated with the university classroom, and the feeling of inferiority that is at the core of that frustration is the primary vehicle towards poor performance.  If a multicultural student sees himself as inferior to his peers because of his lack of authority and knowledge, he is less likely to participate in class discussion and group activity.  This is the student that falls behind in one of the most important aspects of the college experience; that is, the opportunities to practice speaking about certain subjects and issues that the student will eventually become specialized in.  In other words, they lessen their potential at becoming articulate in their field of study.  If they cannot be articulate, they cannot participate and will not be respected for the knowledge and contribution that they bring to discussion.  Dean addresses this issue in her article and claims that “the more articulate students can be about these issues, the greater the chance the students will feel integrated in the university” (34).  Students cannot become articulate if they do not feel secure in their knowledge and their authority over that knowledge; this insecurity will not only be evident in their speech, but it will also be obvious in their written work as well.  Dean asserts that teachers must become aware of the fact that “when we teach composition, we are teaching culture.  Depending on students’ backgrounds, we are teaching at least academic culture, what is acceptable evidence, what persuasive strategies work best, what is taken to be a demonstration of the “truth” in different disciplines” (24).  Composition teachers don’t just teach academic culture, they are a representation of it.  For most multicultural students entering college, their first encounter with the culture of academia is through their teachers, and these students learn to embrace the university culture through the examples of these teachers.  In return, teachers must also learn to embrace the cultures that students bring with them into the classroom, cultures that are a huge part of their landscapes for learning.
A lot is being asked of multicultural students entering the university classroom; consequently, a lot is also being asked of teachers as well.  In order to properly appeal to multicultural classrooms, teachers need to examine not only their approach to this growing situation, but they must also consider the tools they use as vehicles for their particular pedagogies.  This is a major concern for teachers, especially those that are new to the university classroom.
The tools used for organizing a classroom are vital and help ease the way for many beginning college composition teachers.  Perhaps the most crucial of these tools is the textbook.  Choosing a textbook is in itself a difficult task.  It doesn’t seem likely that a teacher who does not believe in what he/she is teaching will sound convincing to his/her students; thus, a textbook must coincide with the teachers’ particular philosophies, and classroom ideals. In addition, teachers who face a multicultural situation must take into consideration what Terence Brunk, Suzanne Diamond, Priscilla Perkins and Ken Smith, the authors of Literacies: Reading, Writing, Interpretation, call the varying “processes of interpretation” (xxvii).  In the introduction to their textbook, these authors explain to their readers, “in literacies we offer a series of reading and writing practices that support the process of interpretation” (xxvii).  For the authors, interpretation is something that is not assumed or expected from their readers.  They make it clear in their introduction that they understand that their readers are using their book as a tool for becoming more strategic interpreters, and explain to their readers that “good readers abandon the safety of ratification and risk an encounter with another person’s ideas and experiences in exchange for the opportunities of new thinking and growth.  This back-and-forth process, with its exchange of meanings and its possibilities for making new ones, is interpretation” (xix).  The authors do not assume that this level of critical thought already exists in the minds of their readers, and they know that perhaps for many of their readers, their textbook will be their first encounter with this sort of critical thought.  They appeal to their readers on a humanistic level not just an intellectual one by asking them to “make sure that their regular interpretive practices engage the best elements of their own judgment and experience,” taking the time to remind students of the fact that the process of interpretation that is involved in the act of reading and writing stems largely from the “regular interpretive practice” that comes with real life encounters and experiences.  Most importantly, the authors of Literacies make a profound appeal to their readers when they tell them that “you can make knowledge, not just recall it; you can combine ideas and examples in fresh and interesting ways, not just repeat the combinations that others have made” (xxvii).  For many students entering the college classroom, particularly the multicultural student, the idea of being able to “make” knowledge in the academic sphere is a major discovery; it creates a sense of empowerment that allows students to begin to feel like an authority over their own knowledge.

In the framework of this idea of empowerment, for the most part, Literaciesworks well as a textbook.  It is organized in such a way that it provides for its readers a very physical experience of the interpretive process that it advocates throughout the whole.  It uses process-oriented activities and assignments that allow students to actively participate at all times and at every level of the writing process, while at the same time keeping in mind the varying reading and writing backgrounds of its readers; this is what the authors of Literacies call, “…the process of bringing together literacies that are strangers to each other” (xxii).  Whether it is the essays that invite “active reading,” or the invitations to read that ask students to “sit down with one of them and write informally as if they were talking on paper,” the book works hard to break down the writing process for its readers and lives up to the three main ideas in its title: reading, writing, interpretation (xxix).

The organization of the textbook is coherent throughout.  Each essay begins with a set of “Before Reading” questions that are used in such a way that it is clear that the authors have taken into account the multicultural student by acknowledging the fact that people bring with them their prejudices, biases and cultural histories when they read; this allows students to understand that this is a normal part of being a human being.  This is an extremely important idea for multicultural students who may often feel inferior because of cultural differences.  Dean speaks of this concern in her article and believes that “…most often, it is not the home culture that causes the problems, but a fear on the part of students that elements of that culture will not be accepted in the university environment” (36).  By acknowledging the fact that people will read a text through different lenses of experience, the authors of Literaciescreate a safe and inviting learning environment for students with different cultural backgrounds.

Take for example the opening essay of the textbook, an essay entitled “Mary” written by Maya Angelou.  The essay is an autobiographical piece from Angelou’s memoir I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.  It is about a little black girl named Margaret that deals with issues of identity and race as she describes her experience with a certain white woman named Mrs. Cullinan whose kitchen became her finishing school.  Margaret must deal with the fact that one day Mrs. Cullinan decided to call her Mary instead of Margaret because it is shorter and she does not have time to waste her breath on a little black girl with a long name.  The piece deals with issues of schooling asking the readers to ask questions such as the following: Why do we learn certain things?  How much choice do we have in the things that we learn?  How does race and social class affect our perception and the choices that we make?  The Before Reading questions that precede the essay ask the readers to think about some of their personal experiences in this context.  The questions include some that ask, “How do you choose an appropriate from of address?  How do the forms of address indicate a person’s status?” (Brunk 2).  These Before Reading questions are posed in a way that serves to guide the reader toward using their own experiences and histories as a starting point before they go on to the perspectives presented in the essay.  The questions work to help students recognize that every culture has its unique set of values, expectations and assumptions.  Students dive into the essay with this type of seed planted in their minds as they begin the process of interpretation.  This sort of active reading is helpful especially to multicultural students because it gives them a framework for learning how to approach a certain type of text.  The Before Reading questions for this particular essay also ask the reader to think about the form of the essay, “Write an account of a childhood experience, perhaps a time when you were blamed for something you didn’t do.  How do you encourage readers or listeners to interpret the story as you intend?  Based on your observations, how should a reader approach an autobiographical text like ‘Mary’?” (Brunk 2).  Questions such as these help students to begin to consider audience and intention.  They aid the reader in learning to identify the writers’ specific techniques, and they allow them to be able to relate to certain aspects of writing such as narrative techniques, plot sequence, etc. through their own experiences and in their own contexts.  These sorts of questions create a dialogue between the experiences of the readers and the words of the writers, necessitating an active participation on their part.  Dean recognizes the importance of this type of active learning for multicultural students.  In her article, she quotes James Cummins’ theoretical model for helping students mediate between cultures.  Cummins states that in order to help these students deal with cultural differences in their classrooms, teachers must reflect a pedagogy that “promotes intrinsic motivation on the part of students to use language actively in order to generate their own knowledge” (27). Literacies takes this aspect of the multicultural student that Cummins speaks of into account and reinforces it throughout the book.  By using the Before Reading questions before each essay, teachers are giving the student a starting point for learning to not only read actively but to think critically.

Once the readers have answered the Before Reading questions and have finished reading the essay, they are given three separate activities that work together to get them to begin thinking about writing a paper, and ask them to contemplate the issues that have been addressed in the essay.  The first section of activities is called Active Reading.  This section of questions helps readers to begin the process of interpreting the meaning of the essay.  In every instance of Active Reading questions throughout the book, readers are asked to trace a certain image, detail or concept by listing its occurrences in the essay or it will ask readers to think about a particular perspective the writer has and how that perspective shifts or changes throughout the piece.  For example, the Active Reading questions following Maya Angelou’s essay ask questions such as, “Find several places in Angelou’s essay where her views about herself or other characters change.  How does Angelou signal these changes?  What knowledge do you bring with you to help you understand the changes?” (Brunk 8).  The reader is being asked to not only recognize the views of the writer as they are portrayed in the essay, but the reader is also asked to recognize their own perspective and how it informs their understanding of how the perspectives are similar or different.  Additional questions in this set of Active Reading questions ask the reader to “list as many physical traits, furnishings, and customs of the Cullinan house as you can.  How do Mrs. Cullinan, her guests, and her employees respond to them?  What do their responses suggest about the people who live, work, and visit there?  What does the story say or imply about the moral values of Mrs. Cullinan and her friends?” (Brunk 8).   With questions like these, the textbook offers readers an opportunity to understand the possibilities of meaning that a writer puts forth with the specific words and images that he/she chooses.  Readers can begin to understand that writing is a craft that entails more than just a large vocabulary and involves certain techniques that can be learned once they are recognized.  More importantly, readers are being taught to engage a text as active readers.

The next type of question sequence, Reading in New Contexts, extends this idea of active reading even further.  These questions ask students to practice the process of interpretation across several essays.  The idea of a dialogue between texts is presented in these questions.  According to the authors ofLiteracies, the intention of the Reading in New Contexts questions is to “apply a text’s special concepts or terms to another Literacies reading”; a trait, that according to them, comes almost automatically to good readers (xxiv).  While it is essential for the reader to become familiar with textuality and its uses in reading and writing, the reader does not need to be labeled as either good or bad.  The author’s of Literacies use the label of “a good reader” at several points in their introduction.  By doing this, they somewhat alienate those readers that perhaps have not yet read enough to recognize the concept of textuality.  Whether a person is a good reader or a bad reader is not a judgment that should be made on the part of the author’s.   Their intention is good with the Reading in New Context section, but they do not succeed in explicating its purpose.  Students do not need to feel alienated from the craft of the academic discourse more than they already are, especially if they are multicultural students.

The final set of questions seems to work as the final step towards aiding the reader to begin the writing process.  These questions are called Draft One/Draft Two questions.  There are several features that each set of Draft One/Draft Two questions have in common.  Like the rest of the question sequences, they ask the reader to be an active participant in the interpretive process.  They are process oriented in the sense that they reinforce the work the reader has already completed with the previous question sequences, and they emphasize revision.  They allow students to be exposed to different forms of writing such as journals, personal essays, and other “experimental” forms.  Most importantly, these questions ask the reader to make their own personal statements about issues addressed in the essays, placing them in the position to respond to ideas and to practice authority over subjects of academic importance.  This is where the framework of empowerment comes full circle.  The reader gains a sense of accomplishment at working through every aspect of a particular text, and recognizes his/her own abilities at synthesizing concepts and generating knowledge.

An added feature of the textbook is a section called Invitations to Read and Write.  This section consists of fifteen invitations that ask the reader to participate is several different ways.  They reflect on certain aspects of the reading and writing process that the author’s of Literacies consider to be “common” (xxix).  While it is true that there are certain strategies of the writing process that a majority of writers find helpful, these strategies are by no means “common.”  For example, the categories in this section are labeled as follows: 1. Reading Actively;  2. What Does This Have To Do With My Life; 3. Taking a Second Look at the Reading; 4. Getting Started on an Essay;  5. What Is the Assignment Really asking?;  6. Integrating Quotations with Interpretation;  7. What Do the Teacher’s Comments Mean?;  8. Asking Your Own Questions;  9. Organizing, or Making Relations Clear;  10. Checking Your Progress;  11. Responding to Peer’s Draft; 12. How Do you Deal with Error?;  13. Tracking a Pattern of Error;  14. Reviewing…In Your Own Words;  15. Using Your Personal Handbook to Copyread a New Draft (xxx).  While some of these categories are extremely helpful for students, such as numbers 2, 4, 12, 13 and 15, others such as “Getting started on an Essay” aren’t as easily realized by students that have a really hard time starting an essay.  The textbook does not offer a practical solution for getting started.  It merely states that the reader needs to get started; it does not give the reader ideas on how to go about it.  The author’s tell their readers, “If you have no idea where to begin, try writing in detail about something you do not understand” (xxxv).  This statement would only serve to confuse and overwhelm readers that have always experienced a sense of anxiety over how to go about starting the writing process.  It is not very informative, nor is it very helpful.

While the author’s of Literacies fail to be inclusive and instead alienate the reader with labels of good and bad at certain points in their introduction, and while some of their explanations of what they offer the reader are not consistent with their idea of the process of interpretation, their larger intentions for the textbook succeed as a whole because of the reader that they are targeting.  They are aware of the multiculturalism that is a huge part of the classroom dynamic today, and they succeeded at creating a textbook full of readings and assignments that are geared toward that dynamic.  One of Dean’s major claims is that the composition teacher that succeeds at helping students with cultural transition does so by “helping students acquire academic discourse while retaining pride and a sense of power in the discourse they bring with them” (31).  Literacies works as a textbook that does just that.  Through its choice of readings and its series of questions, it asks its readers to be in constant dialogue both with what they read and with the personal experiences and histories they bring to those readings, and ultimately provides for its readers a chance to create a sense of empowerment for themselves.  The author’s constantly reinforce this dialogue throughout the book and they remind their reader’s that “everything is up for grabs, then, when you think about what you read: and that is the power, and the risk of the encounter.  Reading like that can change a person” (xvii).


Works Cited

Brunk, Diamond S., et al. Literacies: Reading, Writing, Interpretation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2000.

Dean, Terry. “Multicultural Classrooms, Monocultural Teachers.” College Composition and Communication 40 (1989): 23-37.

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

← Older posts