Asynchronous class: Annotated Bib

2/18/2022

Use this space to post one of your annotations

If we were working on this in class, I would have asked folks to volunteer to allow me to life edit their annotation in front of the class. This kind of workshop is not a kind of workshop that you would do at the start of the semester with most students. It's a kind of workshop that requires a great deal of trust, because it can feel pretty brutal when done live. But when you've established trust in a classroom, this kind of workshop can be very powerful. Everyone learns something--the students who volunteer to have their annotations workshopped are helped, but all of the students watching the editing learn a lot too.

For our purposes, in an asynchronous setting, what I will do is comment on each of your annotations. My comments will be focused on three things: 1) I will look at sentences for clarity and brevity--because that is what makes a great annotation, potent, brief writing; 2) I will ask questions if I don't understand something about what you wrote; 3) I will make suggestions about organization for, again, brevity and potency.

WHAT TO POST: Please post one of your annotations from one of your articles. Remember that there is help on writing your annotations located on the assignment page for the reverse annotated bibliography.

19 Comments

Melissa Batty

2/19/2022 11:42:02 am

Approaching Anti-Racist Assessment: Annotated Bibliography
Charnley, V. Mitchell. (1978). Grading standards vary considerably, experiment shows.
Journalism Educator, 33(3), 49-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695877803300311
Mitchell V. Charnley argues that grades and subsequent scoring methods differ vastly on the heterogeneity of the educator assessing an individual text. Charnley counterargues against an empirical study where journalism teachers were assigned five stories by different students and subsequently graded each story based upon the individual educator’s pedagogical scale; showing that there was no definitive gauge in terms of each students composition or how they were graded by each educator. Invariably, Charnley states that the grading process is just as diverse as each student’s writing ability. The article speaks to the many inconsistencies, such as normalized standards and practices, found within assessments that lie outside of anti-racist ideologies.

3/1/2022 02:08:24 pm

My suggestions: Charnley argues that grades and subsequent scoring methods (subsequent or just other--subsequent implies something that comes from grades as a scoring method) differ vastly (based) on the heterogeneity of the educator assessing an individual text. Charnley counterargues (I think just argues works better) against (what does he actually against? It seems to me that he "provides evidence for his thesis through") an empirical study where journalism teachers were assigned five stories by different students and (then asked to grade them) using the individual educator’s own pedagogical scale; the result of indiividual teacher evaluation showed no definitive, objective way to evaluate the student writing. And that final grades evidenced individual teacher bias. Charnley (makes clear) that the grading process is just as diverse as each student’s writing ability. The article speaks to the many inconsistencies, such as normalized standards and practices, found within assessments that lie outside of anti-racist ideologies.

Sarah Bond

2/21/2022 05:22:15 am

Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/357622
Nancy Sommers suggests that teacher feedback too often minimizes student writing to sentence-level errors in a failure to acknowledge students’ ideas as the substance of their writing. Sommers’s research process lasted approximately a year, and through analysis and interview, examined the effectiveness of teacher comments meant to motivate revisions. While Sommers rightly identifies “commenting” as the primary methodology in assessing student writing, her study finds that teacher feedback misdirects student attention away from their own purposes toward the whims of their teachers, whose preferences vary significantly. For teachers intending to close the achievement gap for students of color, inherent in these findings are both warnings and suggestions regarding the effectiveness of written feedback.

3/1/2022 02:11:12 pm

Sommers argues that teacher feedback too often reduces student writing to sentence-level errors and fails to acknowledge students’ ideas as the more significant component of their writing. In a year long process that included both interview and analysis Sommers examined the effectiveness of teacher comments meant to motivate revisions. Sommers rightly identifies “commenting” as the primary methodology in assessing student writing; her study finds that teacher feedback misdirects student attention away from their own purposes toward the whims of their teachers, whose preferences vary significantly. For teachers intending to close the achievement gap for students of color, inherent in these findings are both warnings and suggestions regarding the effectiveness of written feedback.

Ashley Merola

2/21/2022 07:35:37 pm

Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the Contact Zone. Profession, 33–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595469.

Mary Louise Pratt explores the concept of contact zones and applies it to the context of the contemporary English classroom. She argues against the misconceived model of community to which many academic institutions adhere, and instead supports social spaces that offer an opportunity for open discourse between students from different cultures. To convey this claim, Pratt introduces multiple pieces of evidence that prove the existence and success of contact zones, including a manuscript written by Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala to King Philip III of Spain in 1613, observations from a multicultural American history course taught at the university where she works, and the writing of her own ten-year-old son. Her research illustrates the importance of conflict in literacy instruction, encouraging teachers to embrace each disagreement as a chance to enact necessary change in both their classrooms and the larger world.

3/1/2022 02:23:10 pm

Pratt develops the concept of contact zones and applies it to the context of the contemporary writing classroom. She argues against the misconceived model of "community" to which many academic institutions adhere, where community" is defined as. . . . Instead Pratt argues for social spaces that create space for open discourse between students across cultures.
As evidence, Pratt offers several examples of textual "contact zones" : a manuscript written by Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala to King Philip III of Spain in 1613, observations from a multicultural American history course taught at the university where she works, and the writing of her own ten-year-old son. Her research illustrates the importance of conflict in literacy instruction, encouraging teachers to embrace disagreement as a way to enact necessary change in both their classrooms and the larger world.

Maura Geoghegan

2/22/2022 10:26:44 am

Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English, 68(6), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.2307/25472180

Paul Kei Matsuda presents an argument for the rejection of the myth of linguistic homogeneity in composition courses within the US since this is not an accurate representation of the student population taking these courses. The dominant image of the US college student is a generalized one in which all students are assumed to be native speakers of the privileged US English and those that aren’t are either denied entrance or are placed in courses that do not accurately address their language differences. To accomplish this research, Matsuda examines the history of attempts made towards linguistic containment by presenting a brief review on the policies established to dismiss language difference before presenting his argument that language differences need to be embraced as the new norm. Matsuda focuses primarily on policies and developments made before the 1960s since it was during the late nineteenth century when English composition became part of the entrance exam and thus contributed to the exclusion of language differences. As Matsuda’s work shows, international as well as native non-dominant English speakers are becoming increasingly more prevalent in the student body of US colleges and universities, so it is crucial that the myth of linguistic homogeneity is abandoned and language differences are embraced and addressed.

3/1/2022 02:28:04 pm

Matsuda argues for the rejection of the myth of linguistic homogeneity in composition courses in the US since this is not an accurate representation of the student population. He identifies how the dominant image of the US college student exclusively as an English speaker is a generalized one in which all students are assumed to be native speakers of the privileged US English and those that aren’t are either denied entrance or are placed in courses that do not accurately address their language differences. Matsuda reviews the history of linguistic containment policies established to dismiss language difference before presenting his argument that language differences need to be embraced as the new norm, focusing on policy developed during the late nineteenth century when English composition became part of the entrance exam and thus contributed to the exclusion of language differences. As Matsuda’s work shows, international as well as native non-dominant English speakers are becoming increasingly more prevalent in the student body of US colleges and universities, so it is crucial that the myth of linguistic homogeneity is abandoned and language differences are embraced.

Kayleigh Holt

2/22/2022 12:43:25 pm

Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition. College English, 68(6), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.2307/25472180

Dr. Paul Kei Matsuda provides a look at how college composition courses in the United States have addressed non-native English speakers over time. The article focuses on programs that were in place to accommodate international students beginning in the late nineteenth century and providing an overview of the changes that those programs went through in the subsequent years. Matsuda describes these programs with an eye toward showing how they contributed to the pervasive “myth of linguistic homogeneity” that U.S. college composition courses operate under currently. Furthermore, Matsuda strives to problematize the perpetuation of that myth as it has led to a fundamentally false idea of what the dominant image of students are in the composition classroom. The default assumption, that all students in a composition course are native English speakers who come from privileged backgrounds, must be challenged and reframed by teachers of composition, as it is far more accurate in our current time to think of classrooms as multilingual spaces.

Matthew Cutter

2/22/2022 01:41:07 pm

Elbow, Peter, "Ranking, Evaluating, Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgment." (1994). College English. 12.

In this article, Peter Elbow describes the difference between ranking and evaluating our students and makes a case for evaluation as being the superior form of assessment. To back up his claim, Elbow uses prior research to display the inadequacies of ranking students. Instead he champions evaluation which in his words means, “...looking hard and thoughtfully at a piece of writing in order to make distinctions as to the quality of different features or dimensions” (4). Elbow is arguing that our assessment needs to be more thoughtful than a quick rubric or grammar scan. Most importantly, this article makes a clear, concise case for evaluation in Elbow’s terms. Switching from ranking to evaluation will also get us closer to Inoue’s ideas regarding an anti-racist classroom ecology.

3/1/2022 02:32:15 pm

Elbow identifies the difference between ranking and evaluating our students, as he understands it, and makes a case for evaluation as the more useful form of assessment. Elbow looks at prior research into assessment strategies, including the work of. . . , to demonstrate the inadequacies of ranking students. Elbow is arguing that our assessment needs to be more thoughtful than a quick rubric or grammar scan. He, instead, champions evaluation which in his words means, “...looking hard and thoughtfully at a piece of writing in order to make distinctions as to the quality of different features or dimensions” (4). This article makes a clear, concise case for evaluation in Elbow’s terms.

Brian Seibert

2/22/2022 03:09:58 pm

Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems (pp. 134-166). New York: Guilford Press.

In this essay, David Bartholomae aims to illustrate what the basic college writer is and the underlying reasons they are considered basic. He examines a few example entrance papers written by incoming freshmen. The students may not realize it but they write to a specific audience (college admissions) and participate in a specific discourse. Basic writers attempt that specific discourse without having the proper experience and knowledge to be successful. Writers who successfully manipulate their audience can imagine and write from a position of privilege or power. Basic writers, he argues, don’t have the necessary diction to participate in field-specific discourse. He criticizes colleges and universities claiming they have failed to involve basic writers in scholarly projects, limiting their addition to their field of rhetoric. He claims that a few ways teachers can better help students is by helping them identify the terminology in specific fields and by examining other essays written by basic writers. Oftentimes the basic writer is attributed to writing filled with errors. Bartholomae argues that the basic writer is one who speaks in commonalities (from lack of experience and knowledge), but the goal is to guide them in the process to a more specialized discourse.

3/1/2022 02:41:20 pm

Bartholomae illustrates who the basic college writer is and the underlying reasons they are considered basic. Oftentimes, he argues, writing by the basic writer is writing filled with errors. Bartholomae insists this is not the complete picture. He examines sample entrance papers written by incoming freshmen and determines that successful student writers write to a specific audience (college admissions) and participate in a specific discourse. Writers who successfully manipulate their audience can imagine and write from a position of privilege or power. On the other hand, Bartholomae argues that the writing of a student identified as a basic writer shows the attempt at a specific discourse without having the experience and knowledge to be successful. He criticizes colleges and universities claiming they have failed to involve basic writers in scholarly projects, limiting their addition to their field of rhetoric. He identifies ways teachers can better help students: helping students to identify terminology in specific fields; examining other essays written by basic writers, etc. Bartholomae argues that the basic writer is one who speaks in commonalities from lack of experience and knowledge, but the goal is to guide them in the process to a more specialized discourse and invite them into the wider conversation of the university.

Megan Griffin

2/22/2022 04:40:57 pm

Faigley, L. (1989). Judging Writing, Judging Selves. College Composition and Communication, 40 (4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.2307/358238
Lester Faigley effectively explores the role of self and honesty in regards to their association with good writing. He ponders how honesty has been determined as a key component to a quality paper, why autobiographical narratives are considered more honest than a research paper, and exposes the Western concept of self in writing standards. Through a comparison of a 1929 college admissions English test report and the 1985 collection of 48 great student essays, What Makes Writing Good, he shows how the standards writing evaluation changed over a 60 year span. With two student writing examples from each of these sources, Faigley breaks down the weaknesses and strengths determined by those who evaluated the writing. He then questions their commentary by asking “how do we distinguish the true self?” and “how exactly are teachers supposed to give their students power” (406, 410). Each of Faigley’s sources aid him in effectively arguing for another shift in evaluation which he envisions as placing less stress on the concept of self and an expanded view of the role of honesty.

3/1/2022 02:47:03 pm

Faigley effectively explores the role of self and honesty in relationship to the production of good writing as it is understood by writers and teachers. He examines how honesty has been determined as a key component to a quality paper, why autobiographical narratives are considered more honest than a research paper, and exposes the Western concept of self in writing standards as a bias that affects the writing classroom negatively. Through a comparison of a 1929 college admissions English test report and the 1985 collection of 48 great student essays, What Makes Writing Good, he shows how the standards for evaluationg student writing changed over a 60 year span. With two student writing examples from each of these sources, Faigley breaks down the weaknesses and strengths determined by those who evaluated the writing. He then questions their commentary by asking “how do we distinguish the true self?” and “how exactly are teachers supposed to give their students power” (406, 410). Ultimately, Faigley argues for a shift in evaluation that moves to an expanded view of the what we mean by honesty and a move away from the concept of self.

Olivia Limoncelli

2/22/2022 05:12:21 pm

1. Trimbur, J. (1989). Consensus and difference in collaborative learning. College English, 51(6), 602-616.
https://www-jstor-org.libserv-prd.bridgew.edu/stable/pdf/377955.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A72a2ab14c83e19f45d7c4d69d4f8af1e&ab_segments=&origin=

This essay examines two important criticisms involving politics in collaborative learning. In doing this, it explores "consensus", one of the key terms related to this. Consensus is misunderstood in aspects of collaborative learning and shows to be the most controversial and Trimbur wants to "redefine" it. He explores other writers’ criticisms on the subject in order to gather his argument. He looks into the politics of the "left-wing" critics such as Dewey, Bruffee, and Rorty. Trimbur bravely acknowledges that real problems appear when students work together in groups. He argues that consensus will not lead to conformity, but instead enables individuals to participate actively and meaningfully in group life (p. 604). This is crucial to examine because it encourages "individuals who are part of a shared activity to realize their own power and take control of their situation by collaborating with others" (p. 604). His goal of consensus, is for the desire of humans to live and work together with differences.

3/4/2022 08:56:59 am

Trimbur examines two important critiques of collaborative learning. Trimbur first defines the idea of "consensus" as . . . ., and argue that the term as a concept in collaborative learning is deeply misunderstood. Trimbur acknowledges that real problems appear when students work together in groups. He argues that consensus will not lead to conformity, but instead enables individuals to participate actively and meaningfully in group life (p. 604). This is crucial to examine because it encourages "individuals who are part of a shared activity to realize their own power and take control of their situation by collaborating with others" (p. 604). Trimbur traces critiques of consensus in the work of other compositionists including"left-wing" critics like Dewey, Bruffee, and Rorty and counters. Trimbur advocates for consensus because of our overwhelming need to live and work together with differences.

Shauna Jeanne Cascarella

2/22/2022 05:41:58 pm

Spidell, C., & Thelin, W. H. (2006). Not ready to let go: a study of resistance to grading contracts. Composition Studies, 34(1), 35-68.

This research conducted by Spidell and Thelin examines the ways in which educators have implemented grading contracts, as well as the responses and reactions from students and other theorists. Spidell and Thelin utilize the work of Peter Elbow and Ira Shor to discuss the efficacy and make suggestions moving forward around classroom grading contracts. They also utilize other theorists' ideas around the two pedagogical approaches to grading contracts in order to develop a feedback survey. They gave the survey to students from classes with and without grading contracts and analyzed the data which revealed a resistance to grading contracts in favor of previously held classroom practices of grading. The implications of this research not only better assist educators in deciding on classroom practices, but also inform reasoning and rationale behind decisions either way as well as techniques and suggestions for implementation.

Alyssa Campbell

2/22/2022 06:41:59 pm

Ong, W. J. (1975). The writer’s audience is always a fiction. PMLA, 90(1), 9-21.

In this article for the PMLA in 2975, Walter J. Ong examines the role of audience in terms of writing, and questions how the eventual real audience can be true while it is also true that the audience the author envisions is fictional. He uncovers the distinction between a live, plural audience that an orator is speaking directly in front of, and readers, which while plural, is not a collective. Ong dissects the works of famous authors, and extrapolates how these writers used the notion of an unseen and unimagined audience to reveal some aspects of themselves, but not others. This analysis of historical literary works allows for the historical significance of audience in writing to be tracked.

Asynchronous class: Annotated Bib

Use this space to post one of your annotations

Leave a Reply.

ENGL 513

Archives

Categories