Post a question/point from the article that you want to discuss, or that you think needs to be clarified. Respond to posts from other students. Consult Q & R section of the syllabus if you need guidelines.
Jerika Saenz Dr. Chalaire English 1301.20 2/2/10 Analysis of Wardle’s “Mutt Genres” and the goal of FYC
Upon reading the work of Wardle, it is clear her primar targets of concerns are professors of first year composition courses (FYC); and the correct acquisition of knowledge from students. She stresses the incorrect methods many FYC courses demonstrate unto students have the potential to leave them astray in other courses, and perhaps in ones field of work. According to Wardle, students begin to utilize the skill they have in a “classroom situation,” however, “they no longer do the same work in the world or accomplish clear purposes in response to meaningful exigencies” (769). The core of Wardle’s argument can be summarized, yet it also reveals: complexity, breadth, and depth. Her proposition is mainly the idea in which “we should no longer ask FYC to teach students to write in the university and instead construct FYC to teach students about writing in the university” (767). She also elaborates intensely on the usage and application of genres effectively, and the importance of adaption to each kind. Wardle provides a substantial amount of evidence to support her claims, specifically when she includes a biology course into the world of writing within the argument genre. A biology argument is a totally different genre to write about, and Wardle’s argument is that FYC courses do not entirely expose students to the diverse activities and genres, in which can be inflicted upon students in their future courses or work field. Is the presentation to genres that “exist beyond FYC” a critical component to bridging what students are writing in the present, to what they are to write in the future?
Jerika, This is a fine analysis, and it's exactly what I want you to post to your personal blog. What I want here is a one-page discussion about a question you have over the article, or a comment you want to make about it, or even about some aspect of things that came out in the presentations.
Than I'm having a hard time figuring out how you want a one page question and response including the genre,audience,purpose. maybe if i see an example of some sort i'll have a better understanding.
Cameron Miller Dr. Chalaire English1301.20 February 7, 2010 Q & R Wardle The reading of this article was quite an experience. I believe I got it though. Wardle is telling professors of first year composition course (FYC) that they need to revise their teaching habits and goals. She gives good examples of her point and she makes her purpose very clear. But the one thing I am having problems with is. Why? Why do the students need to be taught that first year? Isn’t that why they go to college four years? So by the end they are developing the work they should. Why must the first year be the time they learn how to write in the profession they choose? What if they change majors second year? Are they going to need to go back and do English 1301 over but in a different major? She makes it very clear why, but why can’t the professors in that major show us how. Yea, some are not going to learn the right way, but no system is going to get a hundred percent turn-over rate. And what if this new system has an even worse turn-over rate. What is going to happen to those students? Are they going to get a paper saying do not hold it against me I am just a victim of the times. I am just an involuntary guinea pig or even the ones before this new method what are they to do go back? I know I am just an entering freshman do not know much, but what I do know is why fix something that is not broken. Just because three people took a survey of their own. We are going to change everything for them. It states two PhD students helped. What were their majors? Were they in the same one as the students who were in the survey? How do they know how those other students ought to write? It says students, later on it gives an example of another student and she even says she tried to recreate everything to be like they were the real deal and not just students. At the end, she said it still was not the same. So how are we suppose to trust two other students when we have another saying it is not the same as being an actual professor. And all the people just mentioned which system were they taught on? If it is the old system seems like it is working to me. What was the percentage of students who fall in to the category of this article? Is it really enough to make such changes that shakes up everyone? One other question, how many businesses have gone to a college and complained that they did not teach their employee well enough? Exactly, and that is the reason I ask “Why?”.
Omar Ruiz Dr.Chalaire 1301.20 Febuary 15, 2010 Q&R Wardle Being a student in the university level gives me my own perspective in this subject. I am someone who is not a very good writer, and I wish i could be taught, as if it was that easy. However, I am not sure what way i would like to be taught; in a linked FYC class or a general FYC class. A linked FYC class may purpose a more distinct future cause, but a regular FYC class may offer certain skills that could benifit in more area's which a linked class would not. Like Wardle said course work being repeted and over talked about could be a waste of time. On the other hand, not having a teacher who understands or explains the particular reason for such terminology, would not benift the student. The regular FYC class needs to be better set in order to provide the information that reaches its possible potential. This would require a combination of the two classes, giving a specific criteria for a field, but to also continue into other fields. The end of the article suggests a new course that would teach about writing in general. This portrays a great idea, in that it will teach what we know about writing and not a specific genre of writing.
Amanda Vera Professor Chalaire English 1301.20 February 10, 2010 Q&R WARDLE “We should no longer ask FYC to teach students to write in the university and instead construct FYC to teach students about writing in the university”. (767) this statement Wardle said stood out to me the most and she has a very important point to it. I agree with Elizabeth Wardle .Why teach about writing in the university when instead they should be teaching About writing in the university. First year composition should do exactly that in order for the student for who are new to everything succeed in their college career. How can First year composition professors teach student to write, most people know how to write so why teach them something they already know. What they teach mainly teach is observations, summary analysis and evaluation which are rhetorically based. Yes it’s a major thing to know that but there is more to writing than just that. It is clear in her observation that most students are confused about genre and what it is. If students show up to class and on the board there is a topic to write about, that’s not going to get anyone anywhere. Because they are going to do the same thing over and over again. But if first year composition like Wardle say teaches students to learn about writing well that’s a whole different story. Because learning about writing in the university instead of just writing can actually teaching the student about the different writing techniques that can be later used in the other courses their taking. Teaching about writing can help shape a student to become versatile being able to apply what they have learned in other course when it comes to writing. “If we start from what we know about writing, I propose we start with goal of teaching students about writing”(784) That’s what first year composition professors should teach , What they already know about writing, from the most basic to most complex thing about writing anything that has to do with what they already know. Besides that’s the only way someone going to really learn, is if that person that teaching them know themselves what their teaching. So I agree with Wardle ““We should no longer ask FYC to teach students to write in the university and instead construct FYC to teach students about writing in the university”.
Cynthia E. Martinez. Dr. Chalaire Eng. 1301.20 02/18/2010 Q&R for Wardle.
The article “Mutt Genres” and the goal of FYC by Elizabeth Wardle, is directed to the teachers of First Year Composition because most of the time is talking about students and showing the teachers how to deal with their students. One thing that I like about this article is that the author mentions exactly what she wants to change about the First Year Composition classes.
In page 767 she states, “I suggest we should no longer ask FYC to teach students to write in the university and instead construct FYC to teach students about writing in the university.” One study that Wardle make in a large Midwestern university illustrates the real problems that teachers of homogenous cohorts organized around majors and other teachers get when they face the main goal of FYC, and this is teaching students to write some particular genres of the college. By making this study, Wardle suggest this change and she stated exactly what she wants to change in order to improve more the composition classes in the university.
In conclusion this is a very good article because the author (Elizabeth Wardle) helps the teachers to improve their way of teaching for the FYC students. As I mentioned before this is a very interesting article and the thing I like the most is that the author doesn’t give to many clues or she doesn’t go around and around to say exactly what she wants to change about the classes so they could be better and help the students to learn more.
Jennifer Resendez Dr. Chalaire ENG 1301.18 Date: 2-4-10 Q&R Wardle The reading on Wardle was a bit difficult for me. I had a lot of problems with the words. In this article Wardle says, “FYC courses are different in “substance….epistemological assumptions…and ideological context” from all the other courses from which they purport to prepare students to write”(776). So from what I was able to get out of this article is that FYC (First-Year Compisition) students should be taught a different way because the current way they are being taught does not go with the way all the other classes or courses require for writing. I think that some of the things that we learn as first year students in writing can be benificial, but I also think there are things we learn that should not be taught or should be taught in a general sense. There also should some emfasis on what we need to know outside of the class because we will be spending most of our time in the other classes writing papers in another way. And after all the whole point of writing is to be taught to write well and if you are not taught well in all aspects how will you become a better writter.
Through this article Elizabeth Wardle attempts to influence the teachers of FYC (First Year College) to teacher their students "about writing" instead of focusing on "to write".
Though I now understand the importance of "about writing" and agree with Wardle that it is significanty important, I don't think I agree with the fact that it should be replaced with "to write".
I believe they both place an important role in writing skills. Teaching both "about writing" and "to write" would be greatly beneficial for FYC students. It may be easy to disagree with me but the way I see it you can't have one without the other. I believe a student will have to learn "about writing" in order to learn "to write" and that it will greatly benefit the student if they know how "to write" before getting into "about writing". Being able to write will make it easier to develope the skill of genre transfer that falls into the "about writing" category.
I think FYC teachers will be will more successful if they were to teach both "about writing" and "to write" equally.
Cynthia you seem to have understood what Wardle was trying to get through. What you have wrote has helped me understand what she was trying to get through to the audience. I will go back and reread the article again with this understanding and see if I get more out of the article.
JoAnn Granados Dr. Mary A. Chalaire English 1301.20 This section of the book tends to put emphasis the importance not only on what your thesis is but how you get your point across to the audience. It states that it is also essential to give reason as to why you’re writing what you’re writing to begin with. They even include several templates which may even enhance your point better. They go on to focus on Peter Elbow’s theory that you must be able to “suspend your own beliefs” in order to successfully get their point as well as your own across. By doing this he asks that you put aside any bias you may have in regards to the matter you are writing about and listen to the writers’ opinion or research. Once you can see “their argument from their perspective”, then you can successfully summarize what it is they are trying to express. And then go on to include your own opinion on the matter. I feel that the purpose of this chapter is to point out to students the importance of not only our own thoughts and opinions on what it is we’re writing about, but to also take into consideration the thoughts and opinions of the writers we use for our research or include in our discussion. It also shows us as students how to summarize the work of other writers well, to express fully to the audience what the writer really meant.
Jerika Saenz
ReplyDeleteDr. Chalaire
English 1301.20
2/2/10
Analysis of Wardle’s “Mutt Genres” and the goal of FYC
Upon reading the work of Wardle, it is clear her primar targets of concerns are professors of first year composition courses (FYC); and the correct acquisition of knowledge from students. She stresses the incorrect methods many FYC courses demonstrate unto students have the potential to leave them astray in other courses, and perhaps in ones field of work. According to Wardle, students begin to utilize the skill they have in a “classroom situation,” however, “they no longer do the same work in the world or accomplish clear purposes in response to meaningful
exigencies” (769).
The core of Wardle’s argument can be summarized, yet it also reveals: complexity, breadth, and depth. Her proposition is mainly the idea in which “we should no longer ask FYC to teach students to write in the university and instead construct FYC to teach students about writing in the university” (767). She also elaborates intensely on the usage and application of genres effectively, and the importance of adaption to each kind. Wardle provides a substantial
amount of evidence to support her claims, specifically when she includes a biology course into the world of writing within the argument genre. A biology argument is a totally different genre to
write about, and Wardle’s argument is that FYC courses do not entirely expose students to the diverse activities and genres, in which can be inflicted upon students in their future courses or
work field. Is the presentation to genres that “exist beyond FYC” a critical component to bridging what students are writing in the present, to what they are to write in the future?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJerika,
ReplyDeleteThis is a fine analysis, and it's exactly what I want you to post to your personal blog. What I want here is a one-page discussion about a question you have over the article, or a comment you want to make about it, or even about some aspect of things that came out in the presentations.
Than I'm having a hard time figuring out how you want a one page question and response including the genre,audience,purpose.
ReplyDeletemaybe if i see an example of some sort i'll have a better understanding.
Cameron Miller
ReplyDeleteDr. Chalaire
English1301.20
February 7, 2010
Q & R Wardle
The reading of this article was quite an experience. I believe I got it though. Wardle is telling professors of first year composition course (FYC) that they need to revise their teaching habits and goals. She gives good examples of her point and she makes her purpose very clear. But the one thing I am having problems with is. Why? Why do the students need to be taught that first year? Isn’t that why they go to college four years? So by the end they are developing the work they should. Why must the first year be the time they learn how to write in the profession they choose? What if they change majors second year? Are they going to need to go back and do English 1301 over but in a different major?
She makes it very clear why, but why can’t the professors in that major show us how. Yea, some are not going to learn the right way, but no system is going to get a hundred percent turn-over rate. And what if this new system has an even worse turn-over rate. What is going to happen to those students? Are they going to get a paper saying do not hold it against me I am just a victim of the times. I am just an involuntary guinea pig or even the ones before this new method what are they to do go back?
I know I am just an entering freshman do not know much, but what I do know is why fix something that is not broken. Just because three people took a survey of their own. We are going to change everything for them. It states two PhD students helped. What were their majors? Were they in the same one as the students who were in the survey? How do they know how those other students ought to write? It says students, later on it gives an example of another student and she even says she tried to recreate everything to be like they were the real deal and not just students. At the end, she said it still was not the same. So how are we suppose to trust two other students when we have another saying it is not the same as being an actual professor. And all the people just mentioned which system were they taught on? If it is the old system seems like it is working to me.
What was the percentage of students who fall in to the category of this article? Is it really enough to make such changes that shakes up everyone? One other question, how many businesses have gone to a college and complained that they did not teach their employee well enough? Exactly, and that is the reason I ask “Why?”.
Omar Ruiz
ReplyDeleteDr.Chalaire
1301.20
Febuary 15, 2010
Q&R Wardle
Being a student in the university level gives me my own perspective in this subject. I am someone who is not a very good writer, and I wish i could be taught, as if it was that easy. However, I am not sure what way i would like to be taught; in a linked FYC class or a general FYC class. A linked FYC class may purpose a more distinct future cause, but a regular FYC class may offer certain skills that could benifit in more area's which a linked class would not. Like Wardle said course work being repeted and over talked about could be a waste of time. On the other hand, not having a teacher who understands or explains the particular reason for such terminology, would not benift the student. The regular FYC class needs to be better set in order to provide the information that reaches its possible potential. This would require a combination of the two classes, giving a specific criteria for a field, but to also continue into other fields. The end of the article suggests a new course that would teach about writing in general. This portrays a great idea, in that it will teach what we know about writing and not a specific genre of writing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Vera
ReplyDeleteProfessor Chalaire
English 1301.20
February 10, 2010
Q&R WARDLE
“We should no longer ask FYC to teach students to write in the university and instead construct FYC to teach students about writing in the university”. (767) this statement Wardle
said stood out to me the most and she has a very important point to it. I agree with Elizabeth
Wardle .Why teach about writing in the university when instead they should be teaching About writing in the university. First year composition should do exactly that in order for the student for who are new to everything succeed in their college career.
How can First year composition professors teach student to write, most people know how
to write so why teach them something they already know. What they teach mainly teach is
observations, summary analysis and evaluation which are rhetorically based. Yes it’s a major
thing to know that but there is more to writing than just that. It is clear in her observation that
most students are confused about genre and what it is. If students show up to class and on the
board there is a topic to write about, that’s not going to get anyone anywhere. Because they are going to do the same thing over and over again. But if first year composition like Wardle say teaches students to learn about writing well that’s a whole different story. Because learning about writing in the university instead of just writing can actually teaching the student about the different writing techniques that can be later used in the other courses their taking. Teaching
about writing can help shape a student to become versatile being able to apply what they have learned in other course when it comes to writing.
“If we start from what we know about writing, I propose we start with goal of teaching
students about writing”(784) That’s what first year composition professors should teach , What
they already know about writing, from the most basic to most complex thing about writing
anything that has to do with what they already know. Besides that’s the only way someone going
to really learn, is if that person that teaching them know themselves what their teaching. So I agree with Wardle ““We should no longer ask FYC to teach students to write in the university and instead construct FYC to teach students about writing in the university”.
Cynthia E. Martinez.
ReplyDeleteDr. Chalaire
Eng. 1301.20
02/18/2010
Q&R for Wardle.
The article “Mutt Genres” and the goal of FYC by Elizabeth Wardle, is directed to the teachers of First Year Composition because most of the time is talking about students and showing the teachers how to deal with their students. One thing that I like about this article is that the author mentions exactly what she wants to change about the First Year Composition classes.
In page 767 she states, “I suggest we should no longer ask FYC to teach students to write in the university and instead construct FYC to teach students about writing in the university.” One study that Wardle make in a large Midwestern university illustrates the real problems that teachers of homogenous cohorts organized around majors and other teachers get when they face the main goal of FYC, and this is teaching students to write some particular genres of the college. By making this study, Wardle suggest this change and she stated exactly what she wants to change in order to improve more the composition classes in the university.
In conclusion this is a very good article because the author (Elizabeth Wardle) helps the teachers to improve their way of teaching for the FYC students. As I mentioned before this is a very interesting article and the thing I like the most is that the author doesn’t give to many clues or she doesn’t go around and around to say exactly what she wants to change about the classes so they could be better and help the students to learn more.
Jennifer Resendez
ReplyDeleteDr. Chalaire
ENG 1301.18
Date: 2-4-10
Q&R Wardle
The reading on Wardle was a bit difficult for me. I had a lot of problems with the words. In this article Wardle says, “FYC courses are different in “substance….epistemological assumptions…and ideological context” from all the other courses from which they purport to prepare students to write”(776). So from what I was able to get out of this article is that FYC (First-Year Compisition) students should be taught a different way because the current way they are being taught does not go with the way all the other classes or courses require for writing. I think that some of the things that we learn as first year students in writing can be benificial, but I also think there are things we learn that should not be taught or should be taught in a general sense. There also should some emfasis on what we need to know outside of the class because we will be spending most of our time in the other classes writing papers in another way. And after all the whole point of writing is to be taught to write well and if you are not taught well in all aspects how will you become a better writter.
Dr. Chalaire
ReplyDelete1301.20
3-9-10
Q&R Wardle
Through this article Elizabeth Wardle attempts to influence the teachers of FYC (First Year College) to teacher their students "about writing" instead of focusing on "to write".
Though I now understand the importance of "about writing" and agree with Wardle that it is significanty important, I don't think I agree with the fact that it should be replaced with "to write".
I believe they both place an important role in writing skills. Teaching both "about writing" and "to write" would be greatly beneficial for FYC students. It may be easy to disagree with me but the way I see it you can't have one without the other. I believe a student will have to learn "about writing" in order to learn "to write" and that it will greatly benefit the student if they know how "to write" before getting into
"about writing". Being able to write will make it easier to develope the skill of genre transfer that falls into the "about writing" category.
I think FYC teachers will be will more successful if they were to teach both "about writing" and "to write" equally.
Cynthia you seem to have understood what Wardle was trying to get through. What you have wrote has helped me understand what she was trying to get through to the audience. I will go back and reread the article again with this understanding and see if I get more out of the article.
ReplyDeleteJoAnn Granados
ReplyDeleteDr. Mary A. Chalaire
English 1301.20
This section of the book tends to put emphasis the importance not only on what your thesis is but how you get your point across to the audience. It states that it is also essential to give reason as to why you’re writing what you’re writing to begin with. They even include several templates which may even enhance your point better. They go on to focus on Peter Elbow’s theory that you must be able to “suspend your own beliefs” in order to successfully get their point as well as your own across. By doing this he asks that you put aside any bias you may have in regards to the matter you are writing about and listen to the writers’ opinion or research. Once you can see “their argument from their perspective”, then you can successfully summarize what it is they are trying to express. And then go on to include your own opinion on the matter. I feel that the purpose of this chapter is to point out to students the importance of not only our own thoughts and opinions on what it is we’re writing about, but to also take into consideration the thoughts and opinions of the writers we use for our research or include in our discussion. It also shows us as students how to summarize the work of other writers well, to express fully to the audience what the writer really meant.