ENGL5361 | 5361Fall2011ReadingJournalInstructionsAndPostings


Chelsea's RR4, 9-27-2011


Shelly's Reading Response 5


Girls mature faster than boys, so we should be better writes, right? Of course this is not what Haswell is saying. What he is saying, though, is that maturity really has nothing to do with one’s ability to learn. Boys may mature slower, but that doesn’t mean they are slower learners. The cycle of mature is as such—we learn, there is maturation, and then we are maturing. It’s a cycle because we should always be learning and making positive changes (progressing). The endless stair image can be used again. Just as one is always basic, depending on his current status, one is never matured, because you are always maturing toward something else. Haswell, at times, seems to be writing a book on child psychological development, not writing, but they are interwoven. In chapter four, he speaks to modeling. We do a lot of modeling with younger students who are just learning—watch me, do a poem in this form, etc. Kids model learn all the time (and sometimes, if they are around other children doing the same thing for so many hours, they learn behaviors from other children, like how not to share). The problem, Haswell says, is that teachers see the point of modeling as not just having a student write a certain way but to understand a certain way. Modeling doesn’t always follow through, though. In other words, form (modeling) is useful to get students to write, but does it always create a love for writing? How do we make the outside conditions (a text) connect with the inner condition (a desire to write)? We must first learn how to write properly before we can write “on our own,” but isn’t everything we write “our own”?

In chapter 5, he introduces new vocabulary words. Growth is a change in a relationship with your former status. Mature is growth toward a newly set standard. Develop is maturing according to individual potential and relationship to culture. The connection to culture here means that students learn from the world around them, and this will help them grow and mature. The danger comes from when their growth and maturing is based upon falsehoods. If the scaffolding is faulty at the bottom, the entire structure will be rickety. Culture also teachers us differences. Haswell says that all learning is based upon recognizing differences. While I agree, this is a sad fact, because many students learn the differences but never realize how dangerous thinking in binaries is. The other sad truth to this is that we want so much to understand ourselves, not others or the world around us, so we discern differences in others in comparison to ourselves. We can only learn when we have some past knowledge to compare new information against, in other words. Thus the process of learning requires unlearning. The important note for teachers here is that we must remain humble and open, and, in the process of helping our students transform, transform ourselves.

Chapter 6 is about nomothetic and idiographic, where the individuals seem to be emphasized more than categories. I think the point here is that we must view student writers as individuals and not label them so much. I could be off. I’m a woman, and I tend to talk more than I think (173) and require more experience than evidence (181), after all.

Finally, chapter 7 reminded me of the theories of structuralism and post-structuralism that we’re going over in my literary theory class. Language, after all, is important, but the meaning of words change depending on the context. The author either matters or doesn’t, and the reader is free to interpret a text’s meaning. The danger here is that teachers then will find many errors and label a student “basic.” Haswell makes a great distinction between errors and mistakes. Mistakes “are due to performance factors or chance circumstances,” where a student has a brain-fart or momentarily forgets, like a typo or mixing up definitions, while an error is when a student has been taught something wrong and continues to make the same mistake because he doesn’t realize he is even doing anything wrong (195). Mistakes, then, we must point out and have a student re-do, while an error we must recognize and re-teach the student. This chapter was the most helpful to me, because I have a student who can’t spell certain words. Sometimes it is a mistake—she is dyslexic and sometimes just mixes up letters—but sometimes it is an error—she hasn’t been corrected on a certain mis-spelled word before so thinks nothing is wrong with it. I have had to pay close attention to her spelling now and have her fix each word she misspells. When she sees nothing wrong with a word, we have to unlearn its spelling and learn its correct spelling.

May I just say, I think Haswell is laying a lot of responsibility on the teacher? But that’s where the majority of responsibility must be.

Rebecca Lyons


Chimene's post

Haswell defines maturing as situated between learning and maturation with learning being environment dependent and geared "toward values set by human culture" (66) and with maturation reflecting "a biological base" (66). He defines further defines maturing as "generative change, at once nurturable and natural, towards cultural standards"(66). This makes sense to me.

However, when I came to the portion of chapter 3 entitled, "Novice and Expert: A Tale of Two Consciousnesses," my understanding of the text begins to break down. So, let me see if I can piece together an understanding amid the scholarly debate, Heraclitus, Wordsworth, rivers, palimpsests, and stereoptican images. Here goes. When a teacher adopts a viewpoint (interpretative frame) that acknowledges maturing, the teacher is better able to discern qualitative differences in the writings of the between two groups that vary fundamentally in where they are along the maturation continuum, even when the writings of both groups have approximately the same number of errors. The teacher not working with Haswell's interpretative frame of maturing, Haswell argues, will judge the piece of writing against some "magic mirror of Perfect Writing," (70) and in doing so, will surely view the work of the upperclassmen as losing or not gaining ground.

Haswell writes "(the) study of mature performance is fraught with complexities" (71). I wonder if Haswell believes that the study of mature performance has greater predilection to complexity than other studies of performance. It seems to me that the complexities abound to all studies of writing performance. Generally and overwhelmingly, it is a complex, open-ended system like language itself. Hence the continual shifting of interpretative frames for appraising and teaching writing that come into being with the flux of time --the 60's and early 70's saw the expert frame, a WAC and tech writer came into being in the 70's and the 80's had a non-academic approach.

Haswell asks the very important question, "...if culture and biology are the shaping forces, what hope can a mere teacher have to change such sovereign ends"(88)? What hope? I think that we have seen in the writings of teachers such as Mike Rose and Mina Shaughnessy proof of change and improvement directly brought about by teachers. We have also seen that some teachers are able to work with, around, and through the cultural impediments such as budget cuts and standardized testing and bad press that make their work all the more laborious. Latching onto a biological metaphor, I think of teaching, at its finest, acts in an enzymatic fashion as a catalyst and crucible for learning.

I enjoyed the short section on Zeno's tale of stasis. I have witnessed in my own practice as a learner and a teacher periods of time where it appears as if nothing is going on whatsoever to advance a learning process other than the inexorable march of time. Learning appears to be at a standstill or worse yet in decline. This is especially troubling for the mature adult learner who has a greater awareness of the preciousness of time. Then, by some mysterious process of fruition,percolation and doggedness, learning manifests itself. It is during times of outward stasis that the learning process is at its most vulnerable because the teacher and the student are likely to draw the wrong conclusions. Both the teacher and the student will begin to doubt each other and themselves. The teacher might come to the conclusion that she/he is dealing with a bonehead. The student without the benefit of tangible, visible improvement feels boneheaded. These static moments are frightening and often times life-changing when they occur within the cycle of standardized tests. Haswell writes that the "short-distance view....leads to another kind of despair: that no change is possible" (89).

On writing models. I have noticed that lots of people have very little tolerance for ambiguity and/or for open-ended models. All things should have a definite beginning, end, due date, a page number requirement, ect. People, by God, want to know what's going to be on the test! There should be absolutely no mystery in the learning process. There will be grades and rubrics and assessment and objectives and traits and mentor texts. The only trouble is that the very process of over-processing the writing process leads not to good writing but to Velveeta writing. Tasty at times certainly but never wholesome. I like using mentor texts for students because it shows to those who are doubtful - Look, it can be done!

end of chimene's post


Dawn Boeck

Since there is so much material to discuss from this section of the book, I would like to focus on some of the things I noted that connect to application in the classroom (specifically my own 1301 classroom). In his discussion of maturing in Chapter 3, Haswell (1991) compares an employee essay with the freshman and “advanced” essays of previous chapters. I found it interesting that he points out flow as one of the differences between these two samples because I had not connected fluency with flow. He emphasizes the complex relationship between fluency and cohesive flow for writers. Haswell finds that the employee essays suggest that “the major competency handling the rhetorical problem of organization” is “maintenance of flow” (p. 81). Taking this into consideration, teachers should place more emphasis on consistent writing practice in varied rhetorical situations rather than teaching students how to fill in the blanks of a template or memorize “preset formats” (p. 81). What are some ways of teaching your students “maintenance of flow” and its connection to organization?

Haswell’s discussion of growth, maturing, and development in Chapter 5 also reminded me of my own students. Growth is one-dimensional, relative only to one’s own past. Maturing is two-dimensional as it “interprets growth in terms of a fixed standard for the future” for the individual (p. 117). Development goes beyond these two as it is three-dimensional, interpreting maturation in relation to one’s own potential. From our discussions in class about Basic Writers, and all FY writers… or writers, we have learned that we should focus on this third frame of development – one that takes into consideration the “culture” and unique background that each student comes from (where they are coming from, where they are going). Rather than seeking growth or even maturation in a fixed sequence, teachers should work to encourage development in their students – understanding that students comes from “previous maturing” and are continuing on “toward possible future maturing” (p. 117). This connects back to Haswell’s earlier claims that we should view students as moving from experienced to more experienced, rather than “from beginner to finisher” (p. 18).

I thoroughly enjoyed Haswell’s discussion of Gadamer and Habermas, although I found myself connecting it to a research topic I am currently working on regarding social change, culture, and ideology. I found it easier to connect these philosophical concepts on social change to the teaching of writing once Haswell introduced Paul Ricoeur’s “dialectical resolution” (p. 130). Haswell finds that Gadamer and Habermas both “describe a natural, human process of change with a common narrative base” when discussing interpretive action (p. 130). He described his “dialectical resolution” of Gadamer and Habermas as “transformative,” a “mechanism-of-development” for students (p. 130). Haswell discusses self-contradiction, alienation, re-action, and appropriation as the “four salient turns” in learning development. He then applies these four turns to application in the writing classroom. His overall message in discussing these four changes is that development in students can only occur when and if they are given the opportunity through “both the outer agency of teacher critique and the inner agency of student experience” (136). The first three turns involve teacher involvement, while the fourth required that students be “willing to apply that skill on their own,” without coercion (p. 135).

Haswell’s discussion reminds me of L. D. Fink’s concepts of significant learning, which are: Foundational Knowledge, Application, Integration, Human Dimension, Caring, and Learning How to Learn. Fink (2003) argues that in order for students have significant and long-lasting learning experiences, they must experience learning in each of these levels (which must be created and delivered by the teacher). Fink, like Haswell, emphasizes the importance of students absorbing and appropriating what is being learned in the classroom and learning how to effectively apply it in alternative or new situations.


Eda's Response

The Concept of Maturity. This is something I have never thought before when it comes to writing, but Haswell's way explaining the huge place of this notion in teaching and learning writing provided me a whole different level of approaching writing.

First of all chapters 3 and 4 reminded me my process of maturing in my writing. Before talking about my personal connection to this concept, I feel the need to define it, but it is hard to present a one specific definition from Haswell, since from chapter 3 to chapter 8, we read a broader definition of maturing, and basically we cannot exclude anything affecting our thought, ideas, way of seeing the world, way of evaluating different texts etc. from the concept of maturing. Being mature is to grow, develop, learn, experience, imitate, be personal and universal etc, In another term, it is trying to find a balance between everything we gain through our lives and adopt this balance into our writings' however this gaining knowledge in the process of maturing never ends, since we keep maturing everyday; there is always a next step for everyone. The reason why I found this concept very close to myself is the fact that I have been learning everything about writing, composition studies in our MA program. First of all, what we are doing in here, generally what is being done in U.S when it comes to composition studies is really unique. I have never experienced a writing process in my own country. So basically, my writing, the way of expressing myself, and the way of applying language have been growing, developing, and maturing every day. Even I can see these changes in me. Plus, coming from a different culture, being in a different cultural environment, trying to follow a different education system have been changing the way I evaluate the things I read, and see. I started to write without being intimidated of presenting my own voice, and I have been learning how to place my voice in an academic way in my writing. I can keep going on explaining about what I have been experiencing since the day I started MA program in here, but the main point is the fact that everything around me, my past, my present, and my future experiences, learning have been effecting my 'maturing process', and I know the fact that this process is not going to end. As far as I am concerned, Haswell tries to present the fact that as teachers, instructors, tutors we should guide students, show the different models they can use to write better, but at the same time we should inform them about the fact that their personal voice is what makes their writings unique and successful; combining their what they learn in class and what they experience is important for them to reach their own judgment about writing. They should not be scared of making mistakes or errors, since this the way they are going to learn the right thing; which is why we should not intimidate them by grading their writings based upon their mistake and errors, since they should know what actually matters is their writing process, and what they learn based upon how we evaluate their papers. In this way, their process of becoming mature writers provides them the chance of being unique writers.

As a person who has been actually experiencing what Haswell talks about in these chapters in my own unique way, I found these chapters very enlightening for my own maturing process, since now I know better what I have been experiencing.

Eda Ozyp


As a precursor, Haswell informs us that the occupations sampled for this study are ones that many students end up entering after graduation. Haswell compares the written product of students vs. employees, and supports his argument that maturation elicits being active with their reading—“…not a paragraph I can read that without my hand assuming its reflex editorial grip” (74).

Ultimately, he found that a mean rate of 5.7 earned by the employees was significantly higher than that of 4.1 earned by undergraduates, which he says “understates the difference in qualities” of their written product (75). Good writing is undergirded with a writer’s conscientious organization, specificity, coherence, syntax, diction, and mechanics. The employees construct longer complex syntax compared to the students, in which T-units and clauses that are longer with variety and emphasis-- that includes “punch[es] of extra-short sentences” (79). The employees are regarded as noun-centered and less verb-centered, show a substantial growth in nominal modification and in increase in nonrestrictive modification: students use once every two sentences and older writers three time every four. Older writers are better at parallelism, grammar, and exactness of prediction.

Self-contradiction and alienation are the two movements I relate to when thinking of my college experience. Habermas and Gadamer have described signs of self-contradictory superego’s identification clashing with id identity; the fear that one is unskilled clashes with the satisfaction that one is already skilled (131). When looking at the employees compared to the students, their life experience guides them past some of these egotistical issues that weigh in in our academic growth. Alienation is an experience outside the self and precipitates change. I like Habermas’s definition of how alienation occurs, “[it] challenges the primary interest socialization that fell for ideology and the primary interest in emancipation that deceived its self into thinking it was free of ideologies” (132). I think here, Haswell is pulling from the theorist’s socializing process that takes place both inside and outside the classroom. Being socialized in an institution means students will be inculcated with ideas and perspectives, and if the act seems contrary to your current perspective, there is hesitation for the learner to continue participating. Hegel and Marx’s also chime in on the topic of alienation that signifies the self unconsciously stripping itself of its own capabilities, and imagines it as a power unattainable and separate from itself—where it feels alien. Social alienation is the felling of a person feeling estranged from one’s own group and this is crucial in the steps of the learning process (132). The employees’ life experiences strengthen their confidence and back their writing supported with attention to details in their thought.

OLIVIA GALAN


Krystal's Response #4


Samantha's Response 9-27


Mike Brown Reading Response 9-27

	While reading through the beginning of Chapter 3, the comparison of students to more experienced writers is interesting. For the most part, the students seemed to lag the more experienced writers in a majority of the areas that were covered. The differences in their writing abilities was evidenced by the scores given to the written essays. Even though specific ages were not given (at least I did not see any), I think that this just follows what we have been reading and discussing all along: a majority of students are ill-prepared for writing at a college level. Personally, I would argue this outcome to an extent with some caveats. The experienced writers in this study had an advantage simply because they were used to writing on a more frequent basis. While working with the 200+ students in the 1301 classes at Del Mar, there is a noticeable difference in the writing skills of the younger generation when comparing their writing to the older generation of writers in the classroom. While not saying they are outstanding in their abilities, the younger writers in my classes seem to actually have the upper hand in overall writing ability/skills when comparing them to the older writers.
	The Interpretive Tales of Maturing (chapter 4) is interesting. The eight steps that students would take to be positively influenced by MLK or Welty are attention-grabbing in that they are, in my opinion, reaching as a short answer, and overall ridiculously difficult for a novice reader to get a grasp of. The section that discusses teacher frustrations and teacher dreams is short but succinct. In this section, the conflict is depicted as being a difference of point of views between the teacher and the student. The teacher feels that the student is just not comprehending the material that the teacher is putting out, an d the student feels the opposite.
	In chapter 5, Haswell discusses the growth, maturing, and development as being integral parts of the teaching cycle. According to Haswell, "Growth brings in the student, maturing brings in the teacher to direct the student's growth with standards, development brings in the culture to qualify the teacher's maturing standards with its actual past and potential future" (118). Together, these three terms combine to create the ideal teaching scenario (if it is at all plausible). 
	Chapter 6 starts off with a magnificent short story. The chapter itself is a discussion about the differences between  idiographic and nomothetic of development. The variants discussed in the chaper are based on different traits such as gender, style, and others.
	Chapter 7 (yes, this is getting very tedious to write about…every page has words on it that I have to look up which is ridiculous) begins with another discussion about the differences of nomothetic and idiographic. I will be the first to admit that when I am looking through papers to grade and correct, I am immediately drawn to obvious spelling, formatting, and grammatical errors. I find that if there is an overabundance of these errors, I tend to not read the paper as well for context. I read through the list of errors/mistakes and recognized all of the examples as being represented on the papers I corrected over the weekend. At first, I was blaming the majority of errors on just being simple typos. However, the more papers I graded, the easier it became to recognize a trend developing in areas such as sentence fragments and run-on sentences. The one thing in the back of my mind is this writing was a cold prompt writing that had a finite amount of time, and hopefully this particular writing was not indicative of the overall abilities of the writers themselves. 

Kerryann K’s response to Haswell 3-7.

       The overlying message of all this psychological information and theory competition between nomothetic and idiographic was that there are other factors to consider when dealing with our students.  Too many to realistically consider all at one time, or our throats will close up like mine did when I read this, BUT I think that because of this we should step back.  Really far back like with Zeno’s paradox and look at everything but look at nothing all at the same time.  We need to be aware that these issues are out there and deal with them on a unconscious level, if we try to do it consciously it won’t be authentic and we become the vacuum teachers stale and unchanging, even as we strive to keep our students from writing in this same way.

       It may be that I am very tired (which I am), but all of these chapters together exercise the same principles that we as educators should learn and follow.  It reminds me of the optical illusion picture where there is someone looking at someone behind her in a mirror who is looking at someone behind her in a mirror who is looking….and so on and so on.  It is a cyclical action involving teachers learning ever-changing ideas that they then must apply to their teaching so that the learning for these ever-changing students doesn’t become stale, etc., etc.  Actually this brings up two realizations just now on my part:  #1-I will admit that I have been guilty of thinking that students in a new school year are less motivated or less capable or less hospitable than those that came before them.  Has much have a really changed my whole curriculum to reflect this new student?  I don’t mean make it easier, I mean make it more individual to the backgrounds and lives of my new students. #2-this big cycle I was trying to explain does not sound as cataclysmically mind-blowing as it appears in my head, but for me all of the chapters coming together with one big reveal is significant.  I don’t know if this is due simply to my interpretation or if this was Haswell’s intention.

       Something I really enjoyed about the reading was the section on maturation and the comparisons between employee and college student writing.  This is something that I discussed with my interviewee and wrote about in my report:  I agree with Haswell’s insinuation that the employees wrote better because they were not stifled in their thought processes by an over-focus on grammatical conventions and confining directions-for-expression.  They are writing at work, not even all of the time, and what they do is authentic.   Think about how much better our students may be able to write if they were periodically exposed to authentic writing situations that did come as practice for a standardized test.  That is most definitely an example of an artificial purpose for writing.

       Lastly, toward the end of the reading it talks about three philosophies on writing style: expressive, ornamental, and transformative.  The only one that doesn’t seem to involve negativity or error as its backbone is transformative.  I love that it assumes some personal stake in writing for inexperienced or basic writers to begin with, and puts the teacher and the student on a closer level for learning.  It does not relegate the student to a place of inferiority or subordination- just a place of apprenticeship and mentoring.

       This summer in the Coastal Bend Writing Project, one of my peers  (Debbie) did her inquiry on using positive reinforcement as the sole initiative for comment on student writing by other students.  We all read the reviews on the front and back of book jackets, jotting down the ones that we really liked for their wording or their “feeling.”  Then we read samples of actual high school writing and discussed ONLY the good/great points about them.  You know?  We were all able to genuinely find some element in each sample to build a positive interaction on.  I think that says something about student writing that we don’t always recognize or acknowledge.

 The End for Kohut.

ed's response

Richard Haswell incorporates into his book the aura of William Wordsworth and his Romanticism to denote growth and change. Wordsworth, along with Samuel Coleridge, are considered to be the founders of Romanticism. The genre of Romanticism contains elements that bring the author into a confluence with nature and a higher spiritual being. But to attain this cosmic convergence, there has to be some reflection of self that leads to a growth or change in the person moving them into a more completeness of self and purpose.

Wordsworth’s name started to show up in the text more than sporadically for it not to have a heavier influence on readers. As I read, I started thinking more about Haswell’s diagram on page 6 “where the development of student, field of writing, and teacher meet and are furthered by the meeting, there genuine educational development takes place” (6). Haswell creates a diagram where these three main forces, or vectors, are always on the move. It is a diagram that displays the same constructs or elements of Romanticism. The author in Romanticism is the student in Haswell’s diagram. Nature becomes the field of study. The higher being or Spirit is the Mentor.

In the Chapter “Maturing” Haswell again uses Wordsworth to show how “the distinctiveness of the viewpoint of maturing finds a memorable expression in the second book of The Prelude. To Haswell, the book is analogous to a student looking to grow and change. The poem may be looking at the past and the vastness between the present, but as Haswell deftly notes, “More than a mere memory or consciousness directed from the present towards the past, this point of view simultaneously turns about and looks from the past to the present” (70). This is what a student does as he enters into the nature of his new academic journey, where he will meet in a spiraling confluence the field of study and his mentor or instructor, a symbol for the higher power.

Haswell analogizes Romanticism into developmental writing to show how a developmental writer can grow or change, just as Wordsworth does in many of his poems. The growth comes from the confluence and dynamic of the vectors moving to and fro. The student grasps the nature of the field they are coming into contact with and the higher power that can mediate or accommodate an existence of growth and change .

end of ed's response


Caleb’s Discussion Post: 9-27-2011 On page 149, Haswell brings into play the concept of “transformative” development. Although he outlines “the contradictions of several popular pedagogical narratives”, Haswell wants to transform the “view of college writing instruction in concrete ways…which teachers can appropriate and apply” (150). Essentially, he rules out narratives such as the English teacher vision, notions of deteriorated writing skills, and the common concept of progression by aging, as many of these narratives of growth have oversized flaws. Obviously, the English teacher vision of morality and holistic writing assessment is not a workable idea that can serve any purpose in writing pedagogy. The teachers who rank Haswell’s freshman, sophomore, and junior writers prove that this means of measuring is not grounded in pedagogy, as collectively, the teachers rated the student writing on the basis of traditional standards, not the supposed holistic method prescribed. Although these teachers, and many other scholars, fear that writing skills are in a constant state of deterioration, Haswell downplays this notion by giving detailed demonstrations of how students are improving their writing. Aging is an obvious means of growth and maturing, however it is unstable and difficult to measure. If writing gets better with age, then what need is there for writing instruction?

After making these points, Haswell goes in to detail about the “transformative” role of development, “which draws teachers back in” as a part of the student development process (150). At it’s introduction, I wasn’t quite sure what the “transformative” was all about, prompting me to create a definition; however, all it took was another page for Haswell to introduce his own idea of what the transformative is all about, suggesting that it is a “stout intervention” in which “the teacher would make freshmen aware of those presuppositions that keep them from seeing things dialectically” (151). In this light, the “transformative” process of development works best when teachers stop using abstract means of teaching, and instead lead students through arguments by devoting attention to both sides of an issue. When students see that multiple perspectives hold logical positions, then they move to the next step of development, “the resolution of contrary positions” (151).

“Transformative” development seems to embody all of the practices preached by other scholars we have read this semester, most notably Mike Rose. Essentially “transformative” development and teaching towards a social context entails many of the same things, as each force students to greet ideas and concepts completely foreign to them, learn what these foreign ideas entail, and resolve any contrary knowledge, or anything that challenges their personal knowledge or beliefs. Through this process of resolution, growth and change occur. Although developmental scholars and process based scholars fall under different camps, following Haswell’s line of reasoning, they seem to push for student growth using similar concepts of improvement, and continued opposition that make students challenge who they are and how they think.

I thought the “transformative” model of development was the most important concept Haswell approaches this week. It creates a bridge of unity with other basic writing camps, and offers developmental teachers a solid working model for classroom application and assessment practices.

End of Caleb's Response


Clare's response

Haswell brought up interesting topics in the previous chapters about maturation; basically, it is made from, in his words, “writing performance (status), critical judgment (standard), and developmental growth (change)” (41). Which, at the time of my reading and note taking, brought to mind the usual reply: “that is nice that you can state what we need but how do we GET there?” This second reading seems to be trying to answer that question. For me, one of the most important ideas that Haswell brings up is the new definition of terms for what is standard. It makes a lot of sense to have students move towards their career goals by modeling their writing after people in their fields. I think that this was an idea that was around in the past, thus our focus on scholarly journals in those fields, but what the past application didn’t take into account was the everyday writing in those fields and their conventions. The lessening of focus from the more traditional assessment ideas of organization, specificity, coherence, diction, syntax, and mechanics (77-80) to the more real world oriented cohesion, productivity, flow, expandability, maneuverability, and adaptability (81-83) would help students find motivation for writing and make them feel less like novices, or like Shaughnessy’s “boneheads,” as supported by Haswell’s research (84). The other part of the reading that I focused on was the discussion on modeling, which I think is a very important learning tool. I was beginning to get frustrated with the reading as I went through because it seemed that Haswell was downgrading the importance of the tool, I actually thought about knocking some sense into his head at my most frustrated, until I got to his point: the important thing is that “the model operate under control of a mentor” (110). While this seems like an intuitive idea, it is perhaps not as ingrained as one would think. I thought of this idea because I saw modeling of critical thinking and processing in my observation and was very pleased to see it and how effectively it was used. The reading made me question if that modeling was effective because of the tool or because of the fact that it was used by the teacher (mentor).

End Clare's response