1) Here you will be viewing my strong response blog post to Branson :
Tyler Branson’s , “First Year Composition Prepares Students for Academic Writing”, published in the book Bad Ideas About Writing, embodies the typical presumed notion that first year writing is about red pen corrections and grammar alone. He recalls a moment where he was sitting in a dentist’s chair and was asked about his profession. Once Branson said he was a professor of first-year writing at a university, the dentist expressed a common critical reaction. Like the dentist, many scrutinize first-year writing and label it as preliminary and tedious. Branson argues that first-year writing courses should be taught as a method of higher academic learning and profound thought, rather than basic composition and remedial instruction in language . Branson believes present day society understands first-year writing to be taken as general grammar mechanics. This topic is quite controversial among educators because it originated from centuries prior, where one’s work was graded based on counting errors not context. It is essential to focus on the reversion of argumentative and analytical writing skills. These basic skills will build a strong foundation to aid in future writing classes and daily use to approach problems. Branson supports his claims with an implementation of statistics and life experiences. The popular thought that first year writing is based on grammar mechanics should be redefined by a change in the curriculum that in turn will alter new generation’s perspective on the matter.
Essentially, Branson uses rhetorical tools like ethos, to support his voice and make a viable connection with the readers. Branson uses appeal to ethos in order to establish credibility in his writing, for example, when he recalls a conversation with his dentist where he had to discuss his job. The fact that his article was published in the book, Bad Ideas About Writing, confirms the validity in his claims throughout the article. He constantly reaffirms his role as a professor and expresses the wrong approach to first-year writing. In all honesty, I shared the dentist’s mindset when he says, “that its teachers consist primarily of error-correctors and behavior-modifiers armed with red pens and elbow patches.” When I picked out my ENC1101 class, I had a presumed notion that this class would consist of preliminary writing and grammar/sentence structure practice. I remember the worrisome feeling of focusing on how I am writing an idea rather than what I am trying to say and interpret. However, it seems that little by little the educational system is reforming because now it includes analysis, purpose, and rhetorical context writing.
I found that Branson appeals to pathos by recalling memories that stir up common sentiments from readers, especially those who share the same mindset as the dentist and myself. He also discusses events in the past where the content in first-year writing is criticized and blamed for the lack of coherence in writing of college students. For example, “” bombastic authors like Stanley Fish who publish New York Times editorials lamenting how college graduates of today are “unable to write a clear and coherent English sentence,” or popular books on higher education like Richard Arum and Josipa Roska’s, Academically Adrift, which claims that college graduates are vastly deficient in writing.”” Since notable figures are advertising first-year writing in this negative way, downgrading the actual content that is being taught, the stigma sticks amongst society. Branson expresses the need to change the approach to first year writing with a serious and critical tone. His diction emphasizes the importance of teachers going above and beyond just grammar and correctiveness.
Furthermore, Branson uses appeal to logos to argue how first-year writing should be taught as a method of higher learning rather than grammatical skills. He goes on to admitting many professors do prefer restricting the content of the class because they are old-fashioned. This is where controversy is exposed, because the style modern vs old-fashioned, is causing a conundrum within the curriculum of English composition in schools. For many educated individuals,“these popular portrayals of writing in the university only reinforce the idea that first-year writing is a course that trains students to churn out 20-page academic essays, or worse, that these are examples of intellectual rigor in first-year writing”. This is the problem Branson addresses, where quality is not measured in first-year writing. However, to promote change in societal beliefs, professors must learn to integrate the essential grammar skills and writing proficiency, but above all context and analysis to produce a well-rounded paper.
Analyzing both Tyre’s The Writing Revolution and Christensen’s Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?, Branson is the most different. Reason being, his argument focuses more on redefining the purpose of first-year writing, making it more analytical and less grammatical. While in Tyre and Christensen’s articles, they are both emphasizing the importance of relinquishing bonds of containment such as structure, in order to fully develop arguments and elaborate on their ideas.Tyre’s article does not speak from the voice of a professor or student, but from a reporter. Meanwhile, Christensen and Branson write their article with their own voice as frustrated professors in a flawed educational system.
All in all, I gained an important message from reading all three articles, entailing that knowledge is power. Although grammar is of utmost importance, a few mistakes will not impede a coherent message. Being taught to be well-rounded in any type of writing will benefit in the future. Teachers should attend to meeting the needs of individual students because everyone learns differently.
Works Cited
Branson, Tyler. “First-Year Composition Prepares Students For Academic Writing” Bad Ideas, 2017, Pg.18, URL
2) Strong response blog post to Tyre :
Peg Tyre’s article, “The Writing Revolution”, published in The Atlantic Magazine, sheds light on New Dorp High School and its curriculum. Tyre discusses the school’s high percentage of underperforming students in writing. The students at New Drop are entering with a low probability of success because the majority come from areas with low resources. However, Tyre implements a new program into the curriculum to help break down the writing process and structure to improve the scores of the students. These students had to build a foundation from scratch at a delayed time of their academic lives. Tyre expresses the urgency of using nation-wide school programs to focus specifically on refurbishing any minimal knowledge of grammar and analytical writing skills. It is essential for students to become well-rounded students, especially to better prepare for future writing in college. The article focuses on Deirdre DeAngelis, principal of New Dorp. It includes descriptive information on her own personal struggles with academics for many years. DeAngelis integrated this program for students to attend after-school writing workshops. She also incorporated other techniques for teachers to use in aiding students with focus and time productivity in all subject areas. DeAngelis’s efforts to improve the process by which teachers approached low-level writing students have turned New Dorp High School into a model for education reform.
For instance, New Dorp High School is failing mainly because the demography of the students is one that speaks inexperience and a lack of resources for the adequate grades expected. Rhetorical devices such as appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos emphasize the importance of teachers molding their teaching styles to the needs of students with relatable scenarios to connect with the audience. For example, the students at New Drop lack a strong base in writing, therefore it must be built before expecting high scores from students so quickly. In other cases, students may excel in writing and need to be further challenged to think critically, but this is not the case at New Drop High School. Tyre proves to be a valid source of information by including quotes from notable individuals in the academic system, for example, “ Common Core’s architect, David Coleman, says the new writing standards are meant to reverse a pedagogical pendulum that has swung too far, favoring self-expression and emotion over lucid communication.” She implements Coleman’s statement to show that there are people within the academic system advocating for reform as well. One interesting point, contrasting from Christensen and Branson’s articles is that the ethos was not coming from a professor or student ; the voice in this academic article is from a credible reporter, whose work is published in The Atlantic Magazine.
Furthermore, I found that Tyre grabs the attention of readers by including DeAngelis’s efforts to constantly remind the administration to value proper eduction and extend beyond minimal goals. Her tone throughout the article is optimistic as she highlights underlying reasons as to how students will learn to write better and approach essay questions more comfortably. For example, “New Dorp’s Writing Revolution, which placed an intense focus, across nearly every academic subject, on teaching the skills that underlie good analytical writing, was a dramatic departure from what most American students—especially low performers—are taught in high school.” Tyre does not fail to mention the extension of this program to other subject areas. She is able to effectively connect with the emotions of students who find themselves lost and confused in their classes, with no hope of catching up. This wide-ranged scenario often concludes with low graduation rates because passing standardized test with a writing portion is a requirement. Tyre provides a positive outlook for students by offering all the possible solutions DeAngelis is integrating in the broken curriculum.
In addition, Tyre’s logos is defined by our necessity to challenge our flawed educational system and making it better for students. As Tyre previously mentioned, for years, nothing was able to improve the rates of, “New Dorp High School’s dismal performance—not firing bad teachers, not flashy education technology, not after-school programs.” The problem was not only the lack of resources and stubborn teachers, but the lack of unity within the administrative staff to produce programs to facilitate learning. For this reason, DeAngelis implemented ideas of other legendary role models of pedagogy, for example, Judith Hochman who said, “The thing is, kids need a formula, at least at first, because what we are asking them to do is very difficult. So God, let’s stop acting like they should just know how to do it. “ Teachers need to stop expecting and start teaching the basics and give students a universal method or formula to come to a conclusion of a problem. In this case, for English, a deep explanation of the paragraph structure, rhetorical devices, and critical thinking questions for analysis are an ideal way to start.
In opposition of Tyre’s argument, New Drop has produced results but not as expected. This is shown when Tyre says , “ in some subjects, scores on the Regents exams this year showed less growth than the teachers had hoped for.” This is due to the high rate of poverty in which makes students susceptible to violence and drug abuse, affecting their performance in school. Because these factors take up the majority of the demography of students in New Dorp High School, it camouflages the advancement in the learning process. However it is important to note that not all schools are failing because of the demography, but because teachers are not adequately teaching the basics to meet each individual students needs. Tyre’s The Writing Revolution, differs from Branson’s article in that the arguments in both are contradictory. Tyre expresses the importance of breaking down topics and allowing students to write in open form, Branson strives to remodel the first year writing content with analytical and structured writing. Meanwhile, I found this article to be similar to Christensen’s Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard? , in that they both highlight underlying reasons as to why students are not able to write efficiently. The root of the problem in both Tyre and Christensen’s perspective is teachers not preparing their students for harder writing classes and furthermore not adapting to each student’s way of learning.
To conclude, Tyre provides the pros and cons of DeAngelis’s program in New Dorp High School, with insight as to what was missing in the curriculum. Overall, the intensive program includes workshops and tutoring which improved the graduation rate and success rate in all classes. There were drawbacks, for example, professors changing their method or teaching plans completely. The results did not bloom so evidently because of certain obstacles such as : high poverty rates, violence, and drug abuse, apparent in the lives of many students attending New Drop High School. However, DeAngelis and her literary influences conquered the stigma of New Dorp’s failure and turned it into a legendary model for other schools to implement in their curriculum.
Works Cited
Tyre, Peg.“The Writing Revolution”. The Atlantic Magazine, October, 2012, URL
3) Strong response blog post to Christensen :
In Linda Christensen’s, “Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?”, published in the English Journal, she emphasizes the main issues within our current nation’s academic curriculum. While noting the drawbacks of most teacher plans, she also offers possible solutions to these struggles faced by both students and teachers in order to promote acceptance of diverse languages and improved writing techniques. Christensen uses a memory of her ninth grade English professor as a way to show the negative impact teachers can have on their students. Simply executing corrections can make students feel inferior. She moves on to claim that many English teachers judge and humiliate their students for not knowing how to write, training them to be “language cops” rather than analyzing topics and expanding on them. Strictly teaching students Standard English devalues their own language and voice instead of having mutual respect for both. She offers a new insight for students, to question those in charge of our academic system and that the quality of your message is more important than how you say it.
Christensen uses rhetorical devices such as imagery, appeal to ethos, pathos, logos, and personal recalling of events, to highlight the importance of education executed properly. Christensen begins her article by retelling a tremendously awful memory of her English professor. She was judged, humiliated, and heavily insecure with her pronunciation of certain words. We see this in many classes around the nation, where grammar and structure is more important than the expansion of ideas. This allows the audience to connect with her painful memory as most students have encountered a situation very similar to this at some point in life. Christensen appeals to ethos by restating her position as an English professor who has been teaching for 15 years of her life. She establishes credibility by continuous examples of her own students and how she has been able to reach them. Christensen provides stories of troubled and disappointed students who do not want to risk communicating something incorrectly so they prefer not to write at all. For example, “ Fred entered my first year class last year unwilling to write…When I sat down and asked him why he didn’t write, he said he couldn’t.” This is the answer many students tell themselves when they attend class and simply do not understand the material.
Moreover, I found pathos to be the main rhetorical strategy Christensen implements in her article because it opens a door for many students to reflect on their teachers and what they can do better. She often produces imagery for readers to picture themselves in the situation. When she mentions, “ This piece demonstrates his discomfort with writing. He wasn’t taking any risks…He writes to avoid errors instead of writing to communicate or think on paper.”, I started to ponder on my experiences in most of my English classes, especially in high school. At one point I wanted to give up on writing altogether because I felt that my thoughts were not valid and my expression of topics was being graded on grammatical errors and word usage/structure. One of the primary issues with the academic curriculum these days is the fact that students are not challenged to think outside of the box. Christensen provides ways to capture students’ attention and feel proud to share their thoughts on stories. Silenced and reluctant writers can break out of a shell by participating in read-around circles where everyone has the chance to share their knowledge. Christensen uses this tactic to allow students to re-evaluate their own lives and learn more of others. She also incorporates stories including : sexual harassment, discrimination, homophobia, and drug and alcohol addiction, her own students disclosed in this read-around circle. Readers may be familiarized with any of these stories and will allow them to relate to Christensen’s values and message of education reform.
As we move onto her approach to logos, it is important to note her efforts to acknowledge the essential tools standardized teaching offers, for example, correction usage of words to read and communicate properly in formal environments. However, the bad outweighs the good in this case because grammar and structure can only get a student so far in life. Lacking efficient communication, analysis, and profound thought will limit many opportunities ahead. She argues that while being a “language cop” may serve some benefits, teachers should be aware of, how and when to use it. Ideally, in a way that won’t intimidate or humiliate students would be the best option for seeing improvement within students. However, I do argue in part with Christensen’s negation of grammar correction. I believe that the improvement in English classes should consist of all factors including expansion of ideas, critical analysis, and grammar as well. Writing follows you everywhere : resumes, recommendation letters, professional emails, internship or employment essays, and overall efficient communication in the formal world. Teachers should focus on giving students the opportunity to share their ideas in a safe place, free of judgment. To add, corrections of structure or grammatical errors is significant. One thing Christensen did not mention is that constructive criticism and commentary helps writers improve, but a fair share of positive recognition is a must.
In comparison with Peg Tyre’s article, “The Writing Revolution”, published in The Atlantic, standardized testing such as the SAT, ACT, and other AP tests enforce teachers to cram as much direct information they can in order to produce high scores for the schools. This ignores a student’s ability to actually think about what they are writing deeply and communicate a message thoroughly. Tyre’s article focuses on a school that holds a similar curriculum style where there is a lack of foundation being built for writing in a future setting.
Upon my own analysis of both articles, “Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?” And “The Writing Revolution”, I conclude that Christensen and Tyre share a connection in values and education reform. Both authors have experienced a life-changing moment which has awoken them to be different and promote a reorientation for academic matters. Another major bond they share is that in both articles these women are implementing new techniques and practicing them to test their theory of the flawed system. Activities and organizations such as the read-around circle, writing to learn instead of a grade, and after school intensive programs have proven to be successful at opening the minds of students and the power of being able to write.
Works Cited
Christensen, Linda. “Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?”.English Journal, Pg. 36,Feb 1990, ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection