Voice can be taught by having students read and practice writing. I don't know. How do you teach someone voice? You teach them to write, you show them examples of voice.
Voice is...a billion different things. It can be used philosophically, or talking about feminism, or...talking about any number of things. It can be used to mean emotion or opinion, but that's not what voice means to me.
If someone tells me they like my voice in a piece, I assume they mean my style of writing. That's the 1950-60's considerations of voice (pre hippie 60's, that is). Then we get into all this individualism/expressionist bullshit in the late 60s and seventies, where you're supposed to write as you speak. Then in the eighties it gets a new tint with feminism, and the idea that women have a "Seperate voice" (thank you Carol GIlligan) .
So be specific when you use the term voice. In fact, it might be better not to use the term at all. Just spell out what you mean, if there's another term to use.
Teach your students to develop an individual style of writing, not a "voice." Everyone has a voice. Unless they're mute.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
An Additional Note
So I was just thinking about the end of composition (that sounded really pretentious of me, didn't it?), and started thinking about advertising/PR writing/copywriting in general. Okay, it was actually the other way around. I was thinking about advertising etc and then wondered: isn't the end of some composition just to produce a product that gets the job done? Okay, ALL composition has a job to get done. What I mean is, I was reading Laura's comment on my ideas for future ways to teach composition, and she asked what would happen to people who don't fall into "humanities" or "science," and I realized that in my zest to categorize people, I left out the journalists from the mix. I don't personally put PR writing, Ad/copywriting, magazine/feature writing in the same category as humanities writing. And although basic grammar is important, and an understanding of sentance structure, journalism requires writers to be more varied in their writing abilities. Well, there are a lot of different styles of writing under journalism.
POINT: Wouldn't it be useful to tell students, particularly English majors and creative writers, that they can ALSO take writing classes in Advertising, Public Relations, Magazine/feature writing, and reporting? I mean, I feel like we have this understanding of "writing" skills as transferrable, but you have to learn the various ways of writing, and styles of writing. Seems like journalism has the whole "writing across the disciplines" under its belt, in the sense that you have to learn to write in different "genres," if you will, within the discipline. And there are classes specifically designed for each type of writing. English majors never take a class on "how to write an English literature paper," "how to write a poetry analysis." We expect English majors to know how to write, without being taught. But for some reason, we don't expect that of communication majors. We teach communication majors how to write. Shouldn't we do the same for English majors? And if writing skills are really so transferrable, then shouldn't journalism majors be excused from 1301, since they're going to take all these writing specific courses anyway? Are major-specific writing courses a good substitute for 1301?
MORE SPECIFIC POINT: I wish someone had told me to major in communication instead of English. I think someone DID tell me that, and I sort of wish I'd listened.
POINT: Wouldn't it be useful to tell students, particularly English majors and creative writers, that they can ALSO take writing classes in Advertising, Public Relations, Magazine/feature writing, and reporting? I mean, I feel like we have this understanding of "writing" skills as transferrable, but you have to learn the various ways of writing, and styles of writing. Seems like journalism has the whole "writing across the disciplines" under its belt, in the sense that you have to learn to write in different "genres," if you will, within the discipline. And there are classes specifically designed for each type of writing. English majors never take a class on "how to write an English literature paper," "how to write a poetry analysis." We expect English majors to know how to write, without being taught. But for some reason, we don't expect that of communication majors. We teach communication majors how to write. Shouldn't we do the same for English majors? And if writing skills are really so transferrable, then shouldn't journalism majors be excused from 1301, since they're going to take all these writing specific courses anyway? Are major-specific writing courses a good substitute for 1301?
MORE SPECIFIC POINT: I wish someone had told me to major in communication instead of English. I think someone DID tell me that, and I sort of wish I'd listened.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Comments on Comments
Here is what I think should happen. A student comments on a student's paper. A teacher comments on that same paper. The two students then discuss what comments were helpful, which were not helpful, and why.
My teaching philosophy is starting to turn really pessimistic. I feel like writing needs to be taught in small classes on a case by case basis. The whole idea of a uniform ("fair") writing class across several hundred students is absurd. Some kids may get a bad teacher; that sucks. Okay, so incorporate writing into more of their classes. Make students learn to write in order to pass their other classes. If a certain style of writing is not necessary to one discipline or in life, then don't make those students learn it. Originally, college was supposed to be a broad education, seeing all of the known world and studying, what, rhetoric, math and...something else. What is the purpose of college now, for most students? To make them eligible to apply for jobs in a specific field. Okay. Then what knowledge do they need? Knowledge relevant to that field.
What about kids interested in a broader study, a more traditional liberal arts education? That's what small liberal arts colleges are for. I should know. That's why I went to one. And you know what? The people who came expecting a focus on real-life training, and job relevant classes, were sorely disappointed. It's okay for different universities to have different goals. It's okay for different departments to have different goals. Engineers are not poorly educated if they leave Texas Tech unable to write a poetry analysis, or even a compare/contrast essay. However, it is not okay if they can't reason through WHY a bridge will or won't remain standing for the next 20 years, and then write that line of reasoning in a clear and articulate manner. Unfortunately, the English department can't teach a chemistry student how to write a research grant. So various departments need to take it upon themselves to teach students how to write in their individual disciplines. The English department needs to teach:
1. Organization: thesis, arguments, counter-arguments, conclusion
2. Sentance structure: a correct sentence, varying sentences, using commas in sentences
3. Grammar: the obvious basics, a few details.
If we want to effectively teach these skills, the subject matter needs to be relevant and engaging to each individual student as much as possible. So either focus on writing in the workplace (resumes, memos, grants, e-mails, cover letter, thank you letter) or get students to bring in work from another class, and go over it to check out the grammar usage (but not style or citations, because these differ from discipline to discipline).
That's my blog. I haven't said anything new. I talked to my cousin this weekend, who is an 8th grade teacher, and we chatted about teaching philosophies / theory vs. practice. It makes me despair for teachers around the world. And she likes her job. It just sounds like a lot of theory only works for a select group of students. So I don't know. I feel like someone should drop me in a classroom for a few weeks, and then see how my philosophy holds up. Right now, it's this water balloon just before it hits the ground.
My teaching philosophy is starting to turn really pessimistic. I feel like writing needs to be taught in small classes on a case by case basis. The whole idea of a uniform ("fair") writing class across several hundred students is absurd. Some kids may get a bad teacher; that sucks. Okay, so incorporate writing into more of their classes. Make students learn to write in order to pass their other classes. If a certain style of writing is not necessary to one discipline or in life, then don't make those students learn it. Originally, college was supposed to be a broad education, seeing all of the known world and studying, what, rhetoric, math and...something else. What is the purpose of college now, for most students? To make them eligible to apply for jobs in a specific field. Okay. Then what knowledge do they need? Knowledge relevant to that field.
What about kids interested in a broader study, a more traditional liberal arts education? That's what small liberal arts colleges are for. I should know. That's why I went to one. And you know what? The people who came expecting a focus on real-life training, and job relevant classes, were sorely disappointed. It's okay for different universities to have different goals. It's okay for different departments to have different goals. Engineers are not poorly educated if they leave Texas Tech unable to write a poetry analysis, or even a compare/contrast essay. However, it is not okay if they can't reason through WHY a bridge will or won't remain standing for the next 20 years, and then write that line of reasoning in a clear and articulate manner. Unfortunately, the English department can't teach a chemistry student how to write a research grant. So various departments need to take it upon themselves to teach students how to write in their individual disciplines. The English department needs to teach:
1. Organization: thesis, arguments, counter-arguments, conclusion
2. Sentance structure: a correct sentence, varying sentences, using commas in sentences
3. Grammar: the obvious basics, a few details.
If we want to effectively teach these skills, the subject matter needs to be relevant and engaging to each individual student as much as possible. So either focus on writing in the workplace (resumes, memos, grants, e-mails, cover letter, thank you letter) or get students to bring in work from another class, and go over it to check out the grammar usage (but not style or citations, because these differ from discipline to discipline).
That's my blog. I haven't said anything new. I talked to my cousin this weekend, who is an 8th grade teacher, and we chatted about teaching philosophies / theory vs. practice. It makes me despair for teachers around the world. And she likes her job. It just sounds like a lot of theory only works for a select group of students. So I don't know. I feel like someone should drop me in a classroom for a few weeks, and then see how my philosophy holds up. Right now, it's this water balloon just before it hits the ground.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Questions...Questions...
All of my little questions about how to make ideas from "I, You, and It" and ideas from the Take 20 video add up to one big question:
Is a thorough education in writing/composition studies only really possible in a small, liberal arts environment?
That sounds harsh, but it seems like the more we read these articles, everyone in class says, "Yeah, that's a great idea...but we can't do it on a large scale."
So is that true? Can operating systems like TOPIC provide activities to teach students critical reading, peer evaluations, rhetorical writing skills, etc?
I guess I'm just seeing a big contradiction between "let students write about what interests them" and "we need to be able to grade the papers quickly and effeciently." So then peer review comes in, but at what level do you say, okay, students can give adaquate feedback?
Sorry for such a big question.
A quick question: did anyone else see a correlation between Moffett's "what is happening now," "what happened," "what could happen" etc, and Wordsworth's whole experience/reflection as a re-experiening of the original event in the Preludes? (I think the Preludes, anyway). I was just curious. It didn't seem like an original idea to me, just an idea new to composition theory, stolen from literature (and made more psychological/analytical, not so much "pretty flowers! ah, memories!")
Is a thorough education in writing/composition studies only really possible in a small, liberal arts environment?
That sounds harsh, but it seems like the more we read these articles, everyone in class says, "Yeah, that's a great idea...but we can't do it on a large scale."
So is that true? Can operating systems like TOPIC provide activities to teach students critical reading, peer evaluations, rhetorical writing skills, etc?
I guess I'm just seeing a big contradiction between "let students write about what interests them" and "we need to be able to grade the papers quickly and effeciently." So then peer review comes in, but at what level do you say, okay, students can give adaquate feedback?
Sorry for such a big question.
A quick question: did anyone else see a correlation between Moffett's "what is happening now," "what happened," "what could happen" etc, and Wordsworth's whole experience/reflection as a re-experiening of the original event in the Preludes? (I think the Preludes, anyway). I was just curious. It didn't seem like an original idea to me, just an idea new to composition theory, stolen from literature (and made more psychological/analytical, not so much "pretty flowers! ah, memories!")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
