Featured videos: language, literacy, writing

Reading Together

Perusall logoWe’ll use Perusall to annotate and read together. Link here to Perusall. Instructions for joining on the Assignments page.

Calendar: link here

Author: Austin Dewart

Writing and its Complexity

Writing and its Complexity

By |

When I look back at school and think of what I was considered to be ‘good’ at, or where I was most proficient as a student, my English teachers always redirected back to writing. However, I never really felt like I learned much in any of English classes short of maybe how to place a comma in its or it’s, or when to use a semicolon in a sentence. The start of my sophomore year I had started to build a habit of taking a number of AP courses in varying subjects. There was only one class I ever ended up with just a ‘B,’ but in contrast to English teachers, no one in particular ever said, “Hey, I think you’re really good at this; you should keep at it.”

While those types of subjective comments never had an impact into my choice to eventually major in English, they still come to mind when I think of writing and the theory of writing. From what I gained of the reading for this week, there is a certain formality to the approach and mechanics of writing- a sort of shift/change where something similar to that of a apprentice turns mentor, or a disciple turns teachers. The formality is demonstrable in writing by the likes of profession and major, where writing and varying styles of writing can differ, or in the audience of who we write for and what of the content it is that we are writing. All of these components in a sense of formality dictate and define our individual calibers of writing and reflect differing dichotomies of approach and reason. Russell also has a penchant for sports with his ‘ball handling’ theory of explaining writing.

Of the majority of what his article contained, one aspect I took as an imperative to my own experiences with writing twined with his aforementioned ‘ball handling’ theory- that is that some people may be good at some types of writing, but are not as proficient in skilled in others as they have not had the experience of being engaged in that said activity. With the varying modems of writing and conduits to express, post and share writing we have available, this is entirely true to both the formality of our skill and experience in varying writings practices, and how we engaged through or with them.

In high school I played a lot of sports, and I also played guitar in a few bands. In tandem with thinking of a progression of moving from a displace to a teacher, the same could be said with the activities I made my focus of interest to many long afternoons.  The more time I put in, the better I became, especially with guitar. Learning bass afterword became exponentially easier, and learning music theory from that sacrifice of time helped me to learn other instruments. The same to me is comparable of our subsets of varying types of writing and how similar/ likewise styles can be fluid with one another.

Lastly, another aspect I took of Russell was that writing can not be autonomously without human involvement. Besides what I consider of writing to be genred and quantative, that our engagement is necessary when in comes to writing. In thinking of a practitioner to virtuoso development for the certain things and activities we really are passionate about, the same is demonstrable and of even more relative importance that I could argue with writing and the varying formalities (who we write to and for what), is most evident and founded upon those ‘enjoyable’ writing based activities that drive us to authentic, genuine inquiry and continually motivate the want to progress and improve.
Blog 2

Blog 2

By |

Prior to attending CSU, Chico, I never considered English had a major emphasis in courses that followed with curriculum involved in particularly literacy or rhetoric. Though I’m native to literature more than I am in either of these two fields, they twine together conceptually with looking critically at what my own theory of writing is, as a relative, individual schema that is variable and fluid rather than static in any given standard of a sense from one individual to a next.

There may be a few exceptions to the broad reach I’ve left to what I think of having a personal theory of writing, but this is with purpose. The one particular caveat I can see as contradictory is that of formal norms associated with our practices themselves in how we communicate in given written forms, such as how to address a formal email in a professional workspace, or in academia with standards contemporary texts of written proficiency such as the essay that have certain elements that are necessary, from a thesis to a progressive, critical structure of a certain focus or focuses before being surmised in conclusion.

So, yes, autonomy in writing is split in meeting accommodation of these type of activities in the sense that the structure for how they may be followed in practice is likewise a scaffolding or form that must be followed or applied in practiced to extent. However, like the article we read for class cited of writing as theory in a number of perspectives, words get their meanings from other words, as well as that writing is a knowledge-building activity. From my own literacy practices, the great majority of my own writing is either aimed at meeting rigors of academia in assignments, whether for short writing based assignments, presentations or essays. In my personal autonomy, I cannot rationally choose to avoid these assignments or not do them if I want to avoid failing said respective courses. Part of the expectation of a university student is that you meet these expectations of academic rigor, for better or for worse. But, in a student’s own personal autonomy, we also use words that are synthesized and answered critically in response to the questions, views and subjects given in turn to our classes and their respective assignments.

These varying modems of written text turned in to professors for their assignments are unique, much like a thumbprint, to every student. Personal autonomy here is what falls in line with words giving meaning to other words in the sense that while their may be precursors for the field, focus, and form that a student’s writing can be dictated, what a student writes and chooses to write are the words, thoughts, and strata of their own selves, and so from where forth, neither student is word for word identically the same in their articled written views, or in their writing, either.  Whether to what degree of accepted variance, every student’s work is unique to themselves and separate, but albeit similar from the rest of their fellow students.

We have varying reasons, spaces, and ways we write, but our words regardless our each to their own of those who write them. Before written literacies, oral traditions of recitation were how civilizations and man kept track of their histories and all other subjects of content deemed necessary to their lives. Words as text in my opinion are in one aspect finite thoughts given infinite mortality when scribed from the personal whom they are derived. I see and also think of writing in terms of literacy as the convention rationally that followed oral recitation, and now has begun to be displaced by the varying mediums of technology with a particular emphasis in wireless communications and social media.

From social media site like Instragram, to websites, texting, and beyond, much of this is all assessable to people in their phones, tablets and laptops. There is a beauty to that, thinking of all these forms and means that we write and dictate our contentions for written communication. I also see this modern genesis as the tandem of both former practices of written and oral literacies combined from two made into one in the sense of the long-gevity one provided, and the interpersonal connection that both could stipulate.

 

So to me, I do not know if there is any particular ‘good writing.’ With everyone being so different in their views, thoughts and connections, I believe the merit of writing as theory should not be to be critical of objective criterion to how they write, but in their array of expression and critical inquiry of an a subject, if any such reason for so is needed, like in academia. Otherwise, I believe writing to be something that is to be fostered and achieved successfully through these modern means with an easier reach of accessibility than offered in prior generations and years. This is why with every one of our words being unique to ourselves that I see writing as theory being so open-ended, because with seven billion different views and beliefs, trying to box, conform or define specifics means for conventual writing practices beyond practical application of grammar is challenging, if not too challenging. Like with autonomous and ideological models of literacy, culture and sub-social norms also have their own affect to how each and every one writes.

That is why, in a pinpointed final scope of thought, I would say this to surmise my theory of writing: beyond being unique to every person in their conventions and expression, writing as theory should be seen as mediation of communication and connection. These practices, while they can be similar in majorities, are also unique and separate from one another. If there are any means of defining ‘good writing,’ regardless of format or style, I would say it has to be in the depth and aspect one synthesizes and presents their relative views in their writing.  However, even that, thinking of what is ‘good writing’ is variant. How much depth/thought in a given sum can be deemed as proficient? I would say that, too, is also of personal dissent.

What is Literacy Again?

What is Literacy Again?

By |

In tracking my own literacies I noticed a few things. First, I’m not as connected to my phone or laptop as other students in other classes or around myself can be. However, I tend to use technology as my main facet of academic literacy to guide me through my day and schedule for whatever task or necessitated need of use that comes along the way. There were a number of other small, minute habits of literacy I noticed, such as relating to major and commonplace interests with others, but technology and mediums of technology in hand with a certain aspect of multimodality was what struck out to me the most about my own personal practices, and led me to what else I came to think of literacies as a whole for academia.

My biggest takeaway from Swed is on autonomous and ideological versions of literacy. There’s a lot he says about their contrasting meanings and how I suppose infinite literacy can be when it can be easy to think as literacy being something completely finite and equally limited.  I could ramble some more about their definitions and add some broad, thorough-reaching examples to give competence to their dichotomy, but I would rather be straight match precise thought with concision of language.

With this class, I am enrolled in Eng 534 with Peter Kittle. One topic surmised Thursday night was of personas in games, as in the character of the audience you are building your game, both before and after. Professor Kittle had us give credence to this postulate of thought by imagining possible students in who they would be before and after our classes in accordance with our curriculum to who we hoped they would be later on in development.

Here is where I made this connection with Swed’s article. My group’s imaged student at the beginning of our class had these number of issues that are commonplace  in young adults: question of identity, issues regarding self-esteem, lack of belonging and a certain parallel of general angst.  The autonomous model of literacy he mentions is broad, and very defined, but only to one set standard that everyone else must adhere to, or are otherwise considered illiterate. The second, ideological model is more interpersonal and varying among majorities. One person not matching another’s caliber or specificity of literacy does not make aforementioned other person illiterate.

As future English Ed teacher’s, our curriculum and time will be meant to help shape these students, especially with academic literacy, which there is a lot of debate within at the moment from No Child Left Behind to literacy comprehension. Being that no one of our students will be completely the same and that their interests will differ, so will their literacies as well as our according response in fostering their academic literacies as well as their own personal merit of character. The game, the content of our classrooms shouldn’t be to the standards of reading Faulkner and Joyce just because we considered their literary works to be ‘classics’ if they have no interest to even do the reading anyway. Certainly assigning redundant grammatical worksheets when they have been proven to have no long-term effect on student retention of said content has no purpose, either.

In accordance with engaging mediums of technology, there have to better ways to connect and gear students toward learning, and wanting to learn. Using curriculum to shape their varying different literacies, whether it is through graphic novels, contemporary young adult fiction, apps that change grammar to a new schema of auditory learning variation, computer programing/ coding, v-logs, directing short films, creative writing, educational games, journalism, after school clubs/groups, and so forth to develop unique, inquisitive and vibrant student populaces.

One student with autism or ADHD will differ in their given ability of aptitude or level of comfort of to other students in the given options and curriculum. Another student may not care for essays and classical literature, but has an interest reading and blogging on issues relevant to their own selves. What if this hypothetical high school has a school newspaper? Maybe instead of another five page essay a student who had the want could become have their own column and become engaged as a journalist. Or even more broad, why are so many students falling behind in reading comprehension? Is it that the broad majority of students have their own shortcomings in their literacies, or is it more of an academic oversight of how existing tests choose to deem a student literate/ illiterate?

There is a lot more to these type of questions, but that is the view I drew from Swed with his point of multiple literacies in my own applicaiton- that typical academia tries to fit a broad, large number of students into boxes with either right or wrong, yes or no criteria on competence prorated by large quantum’s of averaged and medium data with overlapping standards of curriculum similar to an autonomous model that does not always reach or meet with the ideological literacies of the individuals l students themselves.