Dear Ritter,

My letter to you has to contain questions and concerns; therefore, I chose to write to you about Berlin. I don't know where to start. He mostly speaks about four groupings of pedagogical approaches. He expresses how three of these groupings are limited in their theories, ideas, and approaches to writing, language, and the teaching of writing and language. He puts the grouping called New Rhetoricians superior to the other three. He speaks highly of this grouping and says many things that I would consider as positive characteristics such as: "It is a relation that is created, not pre-existed and waiting to be discovered.", "Truth is always truth for someone standing in relation to others in a linguistically circumscribed situation"(774), and "...learning to write is not a matter of learning the rules that govern...we must be discoverers of new truth as well as preservers..." (776). A lot of what he says about this specific group seems to be agreeable and convincing; however, others can be open for debate. I sometimes felt as if he was being vague in his descriptions and definitions. I didn't always understand what he meant with these statements which read: "Truth is impossible without language, since it is language that embodies and generates truth" (774), and "The numerous recommendations of the 'process'-centered approaches to writing instruction as superior to the 'product'-centered approaches are not very useful" (777). Some of his justification for New Rhetoric just seemed a little off balanced. I wonder, why he would choose to describe a pedagogical approach in such and unparallel, and inconsistent manner? His language, organization, and style were extremely difficult to follow. There were many things that I agreed with, and other things that (because of its wording or vagueness) were up for debate. If you can clearify some of his general argument that will be very helpful.

-Crystal Rios





Reflection:
I really enjoyed the letter writing. I feel as though I'm connecting with a peer who is facing the same difficulties as I am, and when we speak about these difficulties, we can come up with conclusions, ideas, thoughts etc, together. I can definitely use this assignment in class. It's a great way to get students involved in reading the assignments. I also appreciate this assignment because it involves the active participation of a both you and a peer. There are some students who will probably consider skipping an assignment or two, but knowing that someone else's grade depends upon you writing them a letter, can function as motivation to complete the assignment. This idea can work as a motivation, or the student can chose not to do the assignment, which will make assessing the assignment more difficult for the teacher. If I were to assign this, I would give a due date, and if the letter writer has not yet written to their partner, I will tell their partner to write the letter in order to receive full credit. I also really enjoyed that as the letter writer I was not asked to summarize the readings, instead, we were to raise questions and concerns in our letters. I found this approach to be very helpful.

Dear Ritter,

I agree with your comment on Young's statement. Creative writing is definitely not just for English classes, and it can surely be an academic tool. I think creative writing is an excellent way of introducing and engaging students into their writing. It is also a very useful way of practicing one's writing. You were right on in saying that student's should be using their creative minds in any time of writing assignments including formal assignments. So I wonder why this separation exist? Why do some people think creative writing and formal writing are very distinctive forms of writing that can not overlap? How can we show our students that both forms work hand in hand?

I really enjoyed the idea of : Without writing there is no history, philosophy etc., therefore, WAC has always existed. If we look at it in that general point of view, I agree with Rose as well; however, I think the recent goals of WAC are more specific and detailed. WAC can no longer be satisfied with this general definition and view. There is so much more to WAC and we must embrace all that it has to offer, in every classroom.

Your experience with the professor, clearly shows how every educator seems to have their own definition of what "good" writing should be. As future educators, we should not limit ourselves and our students by doing this. There is no one way or one right way to write. If the writing is legible, and proves a point (like you said), the rest is just technical and that's what the editing process is for. We don't have to stress ourselves out and our students with the technicalities of writing, because that's exactly why many students find themselves distant and incapable toward writing. I can't believe some educators are negative about writing. They are the ones that ruin it for the rest of us. I'm sorry that you had to experience a teacher who feels that way about writing, and I mostly feel sorry for the teacher. I hope the experience allows you to learn and grow as a person and a writer. It's good to see the teacher didn't completely discourage you.

- Crystal Rios

Dear Ritter,

Chapter 1 in WAC For the New Millennium interested me the most of all the readings. My definition of WAC was a lot more limited before reading this chapter. WAC seems to play a critical role in all aspects of education and pedagogy, and it's dealing with much wider goals than one may think it could be capable of. WAC is concerned with all aspects including English Language learners, service learning, community, assessment, peer review, technology, and so much more. The sections of the reading on technology and assesment were very interesting to me. both sections illustrated WAC's abilities to succeed. WAC technology is being used in possitive helpful ways, while WAC is alos playing a significant role in formative assesments. For example, the addition of essays in both the SAT's and in many Regents examinations.

This chapter as well as chapter 2 in Writing to Learn expresses the importance of peer tutoring/response. Clearly, peer tutoring/response is an effective strategy in most class rooms. WACNM says, "...students can learn from each other as well as from teachers and books" (WACNM, 15). Writing to learn agrees when it says, "When students regularly write about the assigned readings for a class and then read and respond to what their classmates have written, they often can learn the concepts and subject matter of a course better, and remember it longer" (Writing to Learn, 41). I have two concerns with this peer tutoring/response. One is I have to wonder if this is something that is taking place in other subject classrooms, or is it mostly in English classes? The other question I had about this is; how should teachers go about peer tutoring/review? Although good examples were brought up in the readings, it seems to be all theory and fewer specifics on practice.

I can see the connection WAC has with many issues and aspects that educators encounter; however WAC's participation in some of these were not made as clear as others. For example how is the author saying that WAC is directly related to "Curriculum-based peer tutoring programs..." (WACNM, 16)? Many tutors in tutoring programs have never even heard of WAC's significance, nor do many tutors receive WAC workshops or guidance.

Another thing about this chapter on WAC that concerned me was the fact that there was an immense amount of talk about WAC's implementation in higher education and universities. Shouldn't we also focus on including WAC at an earlier age for students? WAC's goals will probably be more effective when such strategies and ideas are being practiced earlier on in student's educational careers, so why the focus on higher education?

Engaging ideas by Jean C. Bean relates to the importance of communication when he says, "Good writing, I like to tell my students, grows out of good talking..." (Engaging Ideas, 7). Similarly WACNM says, "...as students learn from each other. Courses move from being lectures to conversations." (WACNM, 11) This goal is at the forefront of most educators; however, I have to wonder what are the next steps and developing ideas that WAC has in mind to continue this approach in our classrooms? What kinds of things should we assume to expect from such an involved education program?

- Crystal Rios

P.S. I'm sure this is more than 300 words (sorry I couldn't help it), so don't feel obligated to respond to and answer every part of this letter.