questions on audience addressed/invoked

Trying to answer these questions I found it was hard not to include some type of context to explain what I mean. Since we were asked to step away from the "Bitch" magazine add (I'm looking over my shoulder as I type that word on the computer) I tried to develop another example.

· What different kinds of information emerge from the two types of analysis? What does each reveal or conceal?

audience addressed- here you are focusing on the real people reading your text. If you write a paper advocating gun control you will likely attract some politically active people with two very different opinions on the subject. a group supporting gun control won't have very many needs to be convinced that you are right. To win over members of the local hunting club, however, you'll need to present your case in a creative way. You might even need to learn more about those readers to try and shape your argument, you might seek a shared religious belief or high light a past experience in their life on to help you convince them you're right.

If you just study a text based on the audience addressed you'll learn most about the beliefs of the people reading the paper. The way the author relates to the audience will give you some insight on the writer. The way the topic is presented balanced against what you've learned about the audience and writer can teach you a little about the way the topic is perceived in a society.

audience invoked- in this model we can learn more about the topic and writer than about the audience. We can all list a lot of different key persuasive words a writer might use to get across the urgency of gun control. Writing strategies presented by the author can help us learn about the audience. When writing about a controversial issue the writer might use an "imagine if" scenario to both increase support of those already in his corner but more importantly invite opponents to play a believing game about his topic. Whether a reader was resistant to playing the game or willing to think outside the box would teach a us about the audience.

· When or why might one type of analysis be more useful than another?
I think it probably would be a good idea to consider who you are addressing when you begin to write a paper. As I mentioned in answering the previous question if you can develop a good understanding of the characteristics of people who will be reading your work you can adjust your writing as a result. This is where audience invoked will come into play. A skillful writer will invoke at least a portion of people who at first have a different opinion to look at the topic from a perspective more favorable to the author.
I suppose that if you were writing about a non-controversial subject and were just interested in selling books or magazines you might be able to simply focus on the audience you wished to address. Creativity might lead writers to consider invoking different roles for their readers in this situation as well though.

If you were criticizing literature, as Ong was, it is probably more fun/useful to study the audience invoked rather than the audience addressed. I don't want to say this statement applies 100% of the time but in my experience I think a majority of the time this is a fairly accurate statement.

· In what ways do these types of analysis inform each other or reveal weaknesses in each other?
I'm having a hard time finding a new way to answer this question. I've tried a few formats and feel like I'm just repeating myself. If you're bored with my brief explanation please feel free to stop reading if (for some ____ reason) I haven't been clear throughout this let me know and I'll try and explain more.

audience addressed informs audience invoked- who will really read this? what roles might you need to put them in? how likely are they to want to be put in those roles?

audience invoked informs audience addressed- what should you think as you read this? what ideas/opinions might you be overlooking?

weakness of audience invoked exposed- sometimes you can be as clever as you want, you can use the greatest writing tricks ever created and your audience just won't be receptive to it.

weakness of audience addressed- you might like/dislike this piece without really knowing why. If you enter willing to play the believing game a creative author can draw you into a role you never knew was possible and you might understand a topic in a whole new/unexpected way.

Ede/Lunsford

I have to start my summary by admitting that I just had a bad reaction to this article by Ede and Lunsford. Ede and Lunsford seem to play the doubting game about audience addressed and audience invoked. I seemed to find myself as a result being very critical of the arguments they suggested. It seemed like Ede and Lunsford picked relatively weak articles or theories to pick holes in. We really haven't read much about audience addressed so it is hard to tell if there would've been a better representation of the theory but our authors felt the need to explain (apologize?) for picking the work of Mitchell and Taylor. In regards to Ong's "audience invoked" I think even in the few days we had to think about the article we realized that there were weak and strong points to his proposal. Ede and Lunsford had lots of time to pick apart his theory. After reading Ede and Lunsford's criticism of the other two theories by default you had to agree with their theory. My thought was did these authors just prove why two things were wrong and then combine them and claim that this made their theory right? About 1/3 of this article focused on their theory and the strenghts of it. I don't necessarily think I have enough information from Ede and Lunsford to decide if their theory is valid or not.

To help explain my frustration I'll summarize in list form the what I saw presented by Ede and Lunsford.

1) Introduction to topic- there's a debate over how to conceptualize the audience in composition classes in colleges. Ede and Lunsford feel the debate is too narrow. they define what they believe have been the current parameters of the debate. One sentence at the end of the intro suggests that Ede and Lunsford have another alternative, it isn't defined.
2) audience addressed- briefly we learn about Fred Pfister and Joanne Petrik and their contributions to this understanding. Ede and Lunsford (maybe) explain Mitchell and Taylor's theory.
Basically this section went as follows: M and T say _____. This isn't correct because _____. M and T say ______. That's not right either.

It got REALLY frustrating to try and summarize this section point by point.

3) audience invoked- metion of Richard Long and a brief description of what Ede and Lunsford the way Ede and Lunsford understand this topic precedes a rip job on Ong. To me it seemed like Ede and Lunsford were a little more complimentary to Ong than M and T but it still wouldn't amount to glowing praise of his work.

4) rhetoric and its situations- AAAAHHHH- both theories are bad so what do we do? The authors argue that there really isn't much of a difference between these two theories? ok maybe I could understand that but I need examples of how this will happen since so many people before you haven't seen it this way. They explained that when writing their paper they considered both audiences they were addressing and invoking.

I don't know what to say about this article, hopefully discussion will make it more clear.

The Writer's Audience is Always fiction

Walter Ong's essay "The Writer's Audience is Always Fiction" made me think about the way that I both read and write in a different manner. Ong began his essay by pointing out the differences in the audience for a written document and a public speech. In a speech the speaker will know in advance who is writer might be and certainly can adapt his speech to meet the audience he is presented with when he actually delievers the speech. A writer can anticipate who might read their work but ultimately they can't change what they have written. Ong plans on taking these givens and exploring what challenges this presents for a writer.
Ong talks about a common assignment students receive from teachers when they return to school, "write about your summer vacation". For a student this is a difficult assignment because, Ong argues, there is no audience which the student can imagine sitting down and talking about his summer vacation with. The author suggests that to succesfully complete the assignment the student might create an audience he is more comfortable with or alter his writing style so the teacher can relate to his summer vacation.
An author doesn't know what time of mood his reader will be in, where his reader will try to read his work, and the author might not even be 100% sure who will read his work. One way an author can try to negate that disadvantage is to give readers general roles they have to fill. Ong explained how many popular authors created a variety of roles for their audiences. The audience might be on a pilgrammage, like in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, or they might be reading a series of letters passed between friends. An issue with placing demands on readers is that if the demands don't fit the time period or are just too difficult the readers will tune out any message the author is trying to send. Ong argues that this solution to give readers roles can be seen in sports or war corespondence of modern newspapers.
Most of this essay seemed to deal with classical literature authors but in the final section it was argued that the audience was fiction in all genres of writing. In history the interpretation of the"facts" by the historian and the method he goes about delivering those facts is partly due to an audience whose demands must be catered to. Ong suggests that this is why it is rare that historians will explain the same event in the exact same way. Even personal correspondence is fictionalized. It is pointed out in the article that it would be silly if one person greeted another by saying "Dear John" on the street. Similarly writings such as "hi" or "greetings" come off as insincere when written.

post-process theory

Lee-Ann Kastman Breuch's article on "post process pedagogy" took the reader on a long complex journey with, as the author herself admited, a rather unusual payoff. To understand what the article is about one must first understand what process is. The author explains that process is the theory that writing is a process with three stages (prewriting, writing, and rewriting). Breuch and other scholars have started to distance themselves from this definition of writing however and at the present time it is easiest to call the belief system they hold "post process theory". One of the major struggles for scholars studying post process theory is that applying their beliefs to teaching writing (forming a pedagogy) has proved unusually difficult. It was surprising for me to read that some people who had done work in the field had already determined that, while the theory might be sound, it was impossible to translate the theory to teaching writing. After all the explanation of what the theory was an arguments attempting to convince the reader that post process theory was a relevant idea I was happy that Breuch at least made an effort to suggest a method that the theory might be applied.
Dates weren't really given for when this theory began to emerge but because the author spends a good deal of time at the beginning of her paper slapping down critics to the theory I assume that these ideas must be relatively new developments.
Three important ideas about post process theory according to Breuch are that: writing is public, writing is interpretive, and writing is situated. When considering that writing is public the author believes it is essential to remember that writing is for an audience. The goal shouldn't simply be to make the paper look correct the paper must also communicate ideas to the audience. Applying some pedagogies that have been traditionally defined as dialectic can help develop a pedagogy for post process theory under this assumption. Writing is interpretative suggests that the writing both for the writer and audience is open to interpretation. Questions can be raised regarding this idea such as, are there any ideas which are not open to interpretation? The author cites a few philosophers who believe that interpretation never stops. Since writing is situated some people have argued that classrooms shouldn't have a single blueprint and should be constantly changing and adapting. There is an antifoundational undercurrent to this particular part of the post process theory. This part of post process demans that the writer is always aware of the public and professional communities which will review their work.
In a twist that I didn't see coming the author suggested that perhaps the best way to teach post process theory writing is in a one on one basis through tutoring or a writing center. Students play a much more active role in their education in both of these situations which would help satisfy the three major ideas about writing I listed in the previous paragraph. Breuch admits that even this solution isn't the perfect pedagogy but believes the benefits and drawbacks that the theory contains as well as the challenges and rewards of the individualistic writing center and tutoring methods offer might become an ideal match. Breuch urges teachers to let go of more the ideas of pedagogy they were brought up with and embrace the needs of the students which she believes post process theory address.

response to Perl and Sommers

The first thing that jumped out about Sondra Perl's article was actually her title specficially categorizing a group of people as "unskilled". Perl made some distinctions at the end of her study when talking about the implications for teaching where she tried to distinguish unskilled writers from remedial or beginner writers. I suppose I can understand some of the reasons that Perl dislikes the implications of both of those titles, the student's writing shouldn't necessarily be viewed as wrong or something to fix and hopefully the student's don't enter a college classroom with a blank slate of writing knowledge for teachers to work with. I preferred Sommers term, "student writers" or to be more specific a variant of her other group might be appropriate. Something along the lines of "less experienced student writers" might describe the student's studied in a more respectful manner.
The goals and questions presented by Perl were actually quite interesting and I'm curious to know if the conclusions Perl drew were followed up on in the 30 years since her study was conducted. Answering question 3 might be the most measureable and most important goal. Question three asks- What does an increased understanding of their (the "unskilled students") processes (of writing) suggest about the nature of composing in general and the manner in which writing is taught in school?
For someone interested in following up on Perl's research the author does a nice job laying out her terms, methods and the conclusion she drew for her case study. Someone not interested in this line of research might get tied up in trying to understand every detail.
Nancy Sommers compared the writing and revising styles of student writers and experienced adult writers. She spent a lot of time describing her experiment but the most critical part seemed to be when she reported back the responses students and expericed writers had given her regarding revision. Sommers pointed out the distinct difference between the student's revision practices which included redoing, marking out, and reviewing grammar and the experienced writers who were more concerned with theme, form or shape of their article. Sommers suggested that students become to focused on the narrow picture when they are asked to revise their papers and this explained the differences between the two groups interpretation of the term. Sommers article could be used both by teachers in a classroom or for follow up research. While she doesn't lay out exactly what she did in the way that Perl did it is clear that an academic audience would understand how she drew the conclusions that she did.

Cross talk in Comp

This weekend we read a few different selections from the Cross-Talk in Composition book. In the prefaces to the book explain how writing has evolved. The preface to book II explains the changes that have happened in the field in the short time between editions. We have heard from many theorists that writing is a process and this shows how quickly writing has evolved.
It was interesting to read the introduction section 1 about writing being a process. In class we discussed the conference where teachers from England and from the United States discussed the different approaches to teaching writing. This section gave a more concise explanation of what exactly happened at the Dartmouth conference.
Donald Murray's article described a fresh approach to evaluating writing. Murray criticized the way that he believes teachers evaluate writing today. One thought I particularly liked from Murray's article was when he described writing as "the process of discovery through language". Looking at the title of the next section I assumed that this would be a theme that would take hold throughout the assigned readings. The claim that Murray made that I was most uncomfortable with was when he assigned percentages of time to the various stages of writing. As a student I now feel a little uncomfortable if I take more than 1% of my time to publish a first draft of a paper. Maybe Mr. Murray's idea of prewriting/writing and my idea of prewriting/writing are a little different. Murray concludes his article by listing ten implications of how writing will be conducted in a class room if a person follows his rules. Reading the list I found that I liked the way many of his implications sounded but I wondered how pracitcal they really were.
Janet Emig's essay on writing as a mode of learning had a slightly different topic than what I expected. Emig began her article by arguing that writing was a unique mode of communication and learning. She really worked hard to convince her reader that writing was different than talking and I found myself wondering why she was trying so hard to establish something that seemed so simple. When the article finally focused on what writing contributed to the learning process I learned some new things. The author drew on several historical theorists to give support to her argument but also brought science in when pointing out that the right side of the brain contributed three or four times to the writing process. One argument I really agreed with was the idea that successful learning was engaged, committed, personal learning. Emig and Murray both seemed to agree that it is important to let a writer produce work at their own pace.

writing instruction 1900-1917

Economic/Social/Political Debates Involving Writing Instruction 1900-1917

Glenn E. Palmer wrote in essay in 1912 summarizing the debate between Harvard and Yale. Yale wanted to teach the few who were gifted writing and others about the inspiration of literature. The author critiques this as searching for a few geniuses. Harvard was interested in teaching all students “good language habits” (page 190).

Goal for schools was to provide social efficiency. How does this shape writing instruction? Individual instruction, specialized study even early in schooling. How does this decision impact uniformity in schools? Some say it led to social fragmentation. (192-193).

Fred Newton Scott (and others) argue writing courses shouldn’t provide students just with scientific truths, private visions, or persuasive appeals. It must teach all these and more. Any important discourse must be measured by how it helps the community (194).

National Council of Teachers protests Uniform Reading Lists designed to prepare students for college (193).


Changes in Methods/Curriculum/Students in Writing Instruction 1900-1917

In several places the article mentions that in general schools had to adapt to a new wave of immigrant students. There was an attempt to Americanize education. Educators were seeking social cohesion (page 193).

Men are still the students that the teaching is primarily focused on (page 190).

Emphasis on vocational training led some English courses to ignore traditional literature and focus on rhetoric instead. (salesmanship, advertising etc instead of Brit Lit??? (193). See point 2 of E/S/P

1917 Office of Education presents “Reorganization of English in Secondary Schools”. Mostly a conservative document. Recommended emphasizing personal and social needs of students over college requirements. Progression from creative/individual activities at a young age to practical activities.
“writing should have a purpose”
Essay should be formed with “purpose in view and audience for whom the
Composition is prepared considered”. (pages 195-196).

Oral expression taught as well as written word (195).

using they say/ I say in conferences

I believe that it would be possible for a tutor to use the moves described by Graff and Birkenstein in a conference. A belief I held before our practice tutoring session on Wednesday which was reinforced during the tutoring session and in the notes provided afterwards is that for the tutoring session to be effective it can’t focus strictly on correcting the grammar of the paper. I think it would be a mistake for a tutor to read the student’s paper and select certain areas to use a template from the book. As a tutor I hope that during the conversation with the student we can look back on some of the templates suggested by the authors to help steer our discussion.
The author’s noted that summarizing other people’s work can be a difficult task for inexperienced writers. I think that if a tutee was having problems with this talking about what they had read with their tutor might make the topic more clear to them. Discussion with the tutor should also help the tutor better express their own opinions about what they read.
Graff and Birksenstein constantly ask the question “Why _____ “. If tutors have questions about their tutees choice of topics, use/meaning of quotes, or stance on a topic they shouldn’t be afraid to ask the question “why”.

reponse to pt 2 on page 14

The templates provided by Graff and Birkenstein are designed to help young writers format their writing in an academic setting. They help students be aware of both the argument they are trying to make and other arguments that have already been stated. One of the benefits of the templates offered by the authors is that they will help students question and explain their own beliefs.
The reason some people, including me, are hesitant to use templates is the fear that they might stifle creativity. The authors claim that their templates aren't meant to be rigged structures and that people can use the basic outline and still have the ability to be creative.
As the authors stated the "They say, I say" template is a good model because it helps beginning writers understand how they can include both their own argument and evidence while taking into account other opinions. I haven't strictly followed the outline in question 2 but I have tried to address the various parts of the question in a way that I am most comfortable. If the authors truly allow creativity like this then I believe the templates they described might be a valuable building block for developing writers.

Luke Stefan