After looking at three, maybe four of the textbooks to choose from for our review, I chose one that had colored shapes on the cover. How very toddler of me. Upon careful examination of the cover, as one of the guidelines suggested, I made an interpretation. Inside a black rectangle are 18 square boxes, each containing a colored shape or symbol; some are elementary such as a triangle or circle, while most are rather obtuse and difficult to identify. Once I had skimmed the book, I found the shapes to symbolize perfectly the content within as basic writing methods are intertwined with complex writing samples followed by critical interrogation. A curious formula perhaps for the first year writing student to decipher. From Inquiry to Academic Writing, written by Stuart Greene and April Lidinsky, appears to be a fine choice for a first year composition instructor as it contains insightful, relevant articles with corresponding inquiries that the teacher may pick and choose from. From preface to index, Academic Writing is undeniably thorough in the teachings of writing and skillfully develops the relationship between reading and academic interpretation. Given the dynamics of the instruction, I believe From Inquiry to Academic Writing best suited for a new professor of advanced composition.
The preface for instructors begins by presenting the authors' pedagogical theory of composition as conversational, social in act, and catalytic in the production of knowledge. I immediately thought of Kenneth Bruffee's "Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind" and the direct influence it seemingly had on Greene and Lidinsky. Bruffee states, "Writing always has its roots deep in the acquired ability to carry on the social symbolic exchange we call conversation" (551). Now to quote directly from the textbook: "Throughout, we present academic writing as conversational-as a collegial exchange of ideas, undertaken in a spirit of collaboration in the pursuit of new knowledge...we encourage students to see themselves as makers of knowledge" (iii). And Bruffee again, "Collaborative learning models how knowledge is generated, how it changes and grows" (556). Rebecca Moore Howard reinforces the relationship between collaboration and knowledge in Collaborative Pedagogy as she asserts, "When teachers are no longer dispensing knowledge in lectures but are guiding students in the collaborative process of discovering and constructing knowledge, students are empowered" (57). I didn't expect to find such concise parallelism in composition theory, and so quickly. But there it is in the first paragraph of the book. It's oddly rewarding to discover one of the theories of study thus far in such black and white form, in a textbook, used as practical method.
NOT FINISHED
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI think you are doing a great job so far. I really like the way you have related the textbook to some of our reading from the semester. You do a good job of showing us the relationship that you have found between the two.
I also really like how you related the cover design to the complexity of the text. Very interesting!
Here is a question for you:
What exactly is your thesis? As a reader, I think I may have gotten a little lost because your introduction, though it makes some very interesting claims, tackles a lot of information. How does it all come together?
I think once that becomes more clear to your audience, the rest of your paper will fall right into place. I feel that clearly developing my thesis helps me to organize the rest of my paper and make sure that it is cohesive.
Another question to think about:
Are you arguing in your paper that you textbook follows the rules of collaborative pedagogy? From the information you have included in your second paragraph, I am assuming that is the case; however, it would probably benefit you to make that point a little more clear to your audience. Maybe you could insert a simple senctence somewhere that states something along the lines of, "Through its approach and development of classroom lessons, From Inquiry to Academic Writing seems to fall in line with the guidelines of collaborative pedagogy," and then go on to explain why. Show your readers your purpose in writing that paragraph--in short, what is that paragraph attempting to argue? Just a thought.
I know that you have not yet completed your essay, but I think you have a great grasp on the text and all of the claims you wish to make about it. Keep going! You're doing great so far!
Good luck,
Susie
Ryan:
ReplyDeleteI see completely where you are going with your paper. You actually have an awesome start.
Rubric:
Thesis: Once I had skimmed the book, I found the shapes to symbolize perfectly the content within as basic writing methods are intertwined with complex writing samples followed by critical interrogation. A curious formula perhaps for the first year writing student to decipher.
This is what I pulled out as your thesis...I actually like this because this shows how comp studies and a textbook are linking together and how they used something as crazy as the cover to actually make sense out of something that seems to be foreign for so many students.
Organization: Obviously you only have a start, so far organization seems to be there, but definitely some more tweeking will need to be done to get it right there.
Audience: This is an area that so far in your writing I have not been able to say yes to...there is not enough detail yet about the book.
Development: You are providing a lot of evidence from the field; however, I would like to pose the question: are you providing to much evidence from the field and not focusing on the book enough, since we only have a max of 3 1/2 pages.
Genre: I will definitely say that you are demonstrating and understanding and discussion of comp studies and related issues thus far.
Mechanics: Again this is not my field and I do not go here!
I actually like your opening paragraph. I feel it could be broken into two paragraphs: ending after the word decipher and then beginning with From Inquiry.
I will say that your second paragraph is almost to much because of all the quotes. I want to see more of your thoughts interwined and explaining the quotes you are using or even maybe less quotes.
One weakness: I know I have said this but the quoting of so many materials.
Second weakness: bringing in more of your own thought
I would love to see how you feel about the book as if you are looking at it from a student's perspective. Since you are a non-traditional student I would love to know how you look at from that perspective especially.
Hope this helps!
Best wishes!
Rene Rosser