This article echoes Robert J. Connors's call for a reexamination of sentence pedagogies in composition teaching and offers an explanation of the unsolved mystery of why sentence combining improves student writing, using insights provided by work in contemporary research in linguistics and in language processing. Based the same insights, I argue that we invite words and phrases, the true members of sentences, to important positions in writing classes and describe practical methods for doing so. I deeply appreciated RobertJ. Connors's article "The Erasure of the Sentence" published in College Composition and Communication in fall 2000. It was not only a thoughtful look at sentence-based pedagogies but a clear and muchneeded historical analysis of their curious eclipse. I have always wondered why, pedagogically, acknowledging the importance of writing sentences is so often construed as diminishing the importance of other levels of discourse. While I have taught both graduate and undergraduate U.S. students, most of my work as a composition teacher has been with international students who come through university ESL classes or who come for help writing theses and dissertations. In teaching ESL composition, the devaluation of the sentence as a locus of instruction is particularly surreal. It has been as though "process" somehow precludes the immediate process most central to translating thoughts
本文回应了罗伯特·康纳斯(Robert J. Connors)关于在作文教学中重新审视句子教学法的呼吁，并利用当代语言学和语言处理研究工作提供的见解，解释了为什么句子组合能提高学生写作的未解之谜。基于同样的见解，我认为我们应该让单词和短语——句子的真正成员——在写作课上占据重要位置，并描述这样做的实用方法。我非常感谢罗伯特。康纳斯的文章“句子的擦除”发表在2000年秋季的《大学作文与交流》上。这本书不仅对基于句子的教学法进行了深思熟虑的审视，而且对其奇特的衰落进行了清晰而急需的历史分析。我一直想知道，为什么在教学上，承认写作句子的重要性经常被解释为贬低其他层次话语的重要性。虽然我教过美国的研究生和本科生，但作为一名作文老师，我的大部分工作都是教那些参加大学ESL课程的国际学生，或者是来帮助他们写论文和学位论文的学生。在英语写作教学中，句子作为教学场所的贬值现象尤为离奇。似乎“过程”在某种程度上排除了翻译思想最核心的直接过程
{"title":"ReMembering the Sentence","authors":"S. Myers","doi":"10.2307/3594187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3594187","url":null,"abstract":"This article echoes Robert J. Connors's call for a reexamination of sentence pedagogies in composition teaching and offers an explanation of the unsolved mystery of why sentence combining improves student writing, using insights provided by work in contemporary research in linguistics and in language processing. Based the same insights, I argue that we invite words and phrases, the true members of sentences, to important positions in writing classes and describe practical methods for doing so. I deeply appreciated RobertJ. Connors's article \"The Erasure of the Sentence\" published in College Composition and Communication in fall 2000. It was not only a thoughtful look at sentence-based pedagogies but a clear and muchneeded historical analysis of their curious eclipse. I have always wondered why, pedagogically, acknowledging the importance of writing sentences is so often construed as diminishing the importance of other levels of discourse. While I have taught both graduate and undergraduate U.S. students, most of my work as a composition teacher has been with international students who come through university ESL classes or who come for help writing theses and dissertations. In teaching ESL composition, the devaluation of the sentence as a locus of instruction is particularly surreal. It has been as though \"process\" somehow precludes the immediate process most central to translating thoughts","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3594187","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69175557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a 1989 CCCs Staffroom Interchange piece, Delores Schriner and William Rice describe a situation in which a foreign student writes an extremely homophobic message to a class mailing list-advocating the death penalty for homosexuals, something which is "a practice common in his homeland" (477). They say that the instructor recommended on the list that "students who were offended by the discussion should feel free to ignore it and go on to other 'items"'-advice that was itself ignored by some students, so that the argument did continue. Schriner and Rice conclude:
{"title":"Discursive Conflict in Communities and Classrooms","authors":"Trish Roberts-Miller","doi":"10.15781/T2J960B4T","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15781/T2J960B4T","url":null,"abstract":"In a 1989 CCCs Staffroom Interchange piece, Delores Schriner and William Rice describe a situation in which a foreign student writes an extremely homophobic message to a class mailing list-advocating the death penalty for homosexuals, something which is \"a practice common in his homeland\" (477). They say that the instructor recommended on the list that \"students who were offended by the discussion should feel free to ignore it and go on to other 'items\"'-advice that was itself ignored by some students, so that the argument did continue. Schriner and Rice conclude:","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67097154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article I use the lens of postcolonial theory to reflect on my uses of a varied series of writing pedagogies in cross-cultural classrooms at an international college. Such reflection helps reveal how relations of power between teacher and students and underlying ideological assumptions about knowledge and discourse often resulted in hybrid responses of mimicry, frustration, incomprehension, and resistance. A pedagogy constructed against the backdrop of postcolonial theory might provide both students and their teacher in such a cross-cultural setting with a more complex and useful way of understanding issues of power, discourse, identity, and the role of writing.
{"title":"Speak for Yourself? Power and Hybridity in the Cross-Cultural Classroom.","authors":"B. Williams","doi":"10.2307/3594186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3594186","url":null,"abstract":"In this article I use the lens of postcolonial theory to reflect on my uses of a varied series of writing pedagogies in cross-cultural classrooms at an international college. Such reflection helps reveal how relations of power between teacher and students and underlying ideological assumptions about knowledge and discourse often resulted in hybrid responses of mimicry, frustration, incomprehension, and resistance. A pedagogy constructed against the backdrop of postcolonial theory might provide both students and their teacher in such a cross-cultural setting with a more complex and useful way of understanding issues of power, discourse, identity, and the role of writing.","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3594186","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69175509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay illustrates key features of visual rhetoric as they operate in two professional academic hypertexts and student work designed for the World Wide Web. By looking at features like audience stance, transparency, and hybridity, writing teachers can teach visual rhetoric as a transformative process of design. Critiquing and producing writing in digital environments offers a welcome return to rhetorical principles and an important pedagogy of writing as design.
{"title":"Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments","authors":"Mary E. Hocks","doi":"10.2307/3594188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3594188","url":null,"abstract":"This essay illustrates key features of visual rhetoric as they operate in two professional academic hypertexts and student work designed for the World Wide Web. By looking at features like audience stance, transparency, and hybridity, writing teachers can teach visual rhetoric as a transformative process of design. Critiquing and producing writing in digital environments offers a welcome return to rhetorical principles and an important pedagogy of writing as design.","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3594188","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69175661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Contents: L.Z. Bloom, Foreword. Introduction. Part I: Instituting Change. L.W. Phelps, Turtles All the Way Down: Educating Academic Leaders. D.D. Hesse, Politics and the WPA: Traveling Through and Past Realms of Experience. T. Enos, Reflexive Professional Development: Getting Disciplined in Writing Program Administration. G. Stygall, Certifying the Knowledge of the WPAs. D. Desser, D. Payne, Writing Program Administration Internships. E.M. White, Teaching a Graduate Course in Writing Program Administration. S.H. McLeod, Moving Up the Administrative Ladder. D.E. Schwalm, Writing Program Administration as Preparation for an Administrative Career. V. Pantoja, N. Tribbensee, D. Roen, Legal Considerations for Writing Program Administrators. S.C. Brown, Applying Ethics: A Decision-Making Heuristic for Writing Program Administrators. J. Schilb, The WPA and the Politics of LitComp. E.E. Schell, Part-Time/Adjunct Issues: Working Toward Change. Y. Merrill, T.P. Miller, Making Learning Visible: A Rhetorical Stance on General Education. S. Crowley, How the Professional Lives of WPAs Would Change if FYC Were Elective. Part II: Instituting Practice. C.M. Anson, Figuring It Out: Writing Programs in the Context of University Budgets. J. Gunner, Collaborative Administration. D.J. Royer, R. Gilles, Placement Issues. S.K. Rose, I. Weiser, The WPA as Researcher and Archivist. G.R. Glau, Hard Work and Hard Data: Using Statistics to Help Your Program. C. Burnham, Reflection, Assessment, and Articulation: A Rhetoric of Writing Program Administration. A-M. Hall, Expanding the Community: A Comprehensive Look at Outreach and Articulation. J.K. Ferganchick, Contrapower Harassment in Program Administration: Establishing Teacher Authority. K.S. McAllister, C.L. Selfe, Writing Program Administration and Instructional Computing. C.P. Haviland, D. Stephenson, Writing Centers, Writing Programs, and WPAs: Roles by Any Other Names? M. Morgan, The GTA Experience: Grounding, Practicing, Evaluating, and Reflecting. A. Brobbel, M. Hinojosa, C. Nowotny-Young, S. Penfield, D.R. Ransdell, M. Robinson, D. Scagliotta, E. Toso, T. Warnock, J.D. White, GAT Training in Collaborative Teaching at the University of Arizona. V. Holmsten, This Site Under Construction: Negotiating Space for WPA Work in the Community College. M.A. Townsend, Writing Across the Curriculum. B.M. Maid, More Than a Room of Our Own: Building an Independent Department of Writing. R. Jackson, P. Wojahn, Issues in Writing Program Administration: A Select Annotated Bibliography. Appendices: Portland Resolution. Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Administration. WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition.
内容:布卢姆，序。介绍。第一部分:实施变革。L.W.菲尔普斯，《海龟一路向下:教育学术领袖》。D.D. Hesse，政治与WPA:穿越和过去的经验领域。T. Enos，反思性专业发展:在写作项目管理中获得纪律。G.斯蒂格尔，证明wpa的知识。D. Desser, D. Payne，写作项目管理实习。教授研究生写作项目管理课程。s·h·麦克劳德，《行政阶梯的升迁》。写作程序管理作为行政事业的准备。V. Pantoja, N. Tribbensee, D. Roen，编写程序管理员的法律考虑。应用伦理学:写作计划管理者的决策启发式。J. Schilb, WPA与LitComp的政治。e·e·谢尔，《兼职/兼职问题:朝着改变努力》。梅里尔、米勒:《让学习可见:通识教育的修辞立场》。S. Crowley，如果FYC是选择性的，wpa的职业生涯将如何改变。第二部分:制度实践。C.M. Anson，《弄清楚:在大学预算的背景下编写程序》。J. Gunner，协同管理。D.J. Royer, R. Gilles，安置问题。S.K. Rose, I. Weiser, WPA的研究员和档案保管员。g·r·格劳:《艰苦的工作和艰苦的数据:用统计数据帮助你的项目》。反思、评估与表达:写作项目管理的修辞。a - m。扩展社区:对外展和表达的全面观察。j . j . Ferganchick，项目管理中的反权力骚扰:建立教师权威。李志强，《计算机教学与程序管理》。C.P. Haviland, D. Stephenson，写作中心，写作项目和wpa:其他名字的角色?摩根，《侠盗猎车手的经验:基础、实践、评估和反思》。A. Brobbel, M. Hinojosa, C. Nowotny-Young, S. Penfield, dr . Ransdell, M. Robinson, D. Scagliotta, E. Toso, T. Warnock, J.D. White，亚利桑那大学GAT合作教学培训。V. Holmsten，建设中的网站:社区大学WPA工作的谈判空间。M.A.汤森:《贯穿课程的写作》。B.M.梅德，《不仅仅是我们自己的房间:建立一个独立的写作部门》。R. Jackson, P. Wojahn，写作项目管理中的问题:选择注释参考书目。附录:波特兰决议。写作管理智力工作的评价。WPA第一年作文结果声明。
{"title":"The writing program administrator's resource : a guide to reflective institutional practice","authors":"Stuart C. Brown, T. Enos","doi":"10.4324/9781410612359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612359","url":null,"abstract":"Contents: L.Z. Bloom, Foreword. Introduction. Part I: Instituting Change. L.W. Phelps, Turtles All the Way Down: Educating Academic Leaders. D.D. Hesse, Politics and the WPA: Traveling Through and Past Realms of Experience. T. Enos, Reflexive Professional Development: Getting Disciplined in Writing Program Administration. G. Stygall, Certifying the Knowledge of the WPAs. D. Desser, D. Payne, Writing Program Administration Internships. E.M. White, Teaching a Graduate Course in Writing Program Administration. S.H. McLeod, Moving Up the Administrative Ladder. D.E. Schwalm, Writing Program Administration as Preparation for an Administrative Career. V. Pantoja, N. Tribbensee, D. Roen, Legal Considerations for Writing Program Administrators. S.C. Brown, Applying Ethics: A Decision-Making Heuristic for Writing Program Administrators. J. Schilb, The WPA and the Politics of LitComp. E.E. Schell, Part-Time/Adjunct Issues: Working Toward Change. Y. Merrill, T.P. Miller, Making Learning Visible: A Rhetorical Stance on General Education. S. Crowley, How the Professional Lives of WPAs Would Change if FYC Were Elective. Part II: Instituting Practice. C.M. Anson, Figuring It Out: Writing Programs in the Context of University Budgets. J. Gunner, Collaborative Administration. D.J. Royer, R. Gilles, Placement Issues. S.K. Rose, I. Weiser, The WPA as Researcher and Archivist. G.R. Glau, Hard Work and Hard Data: Using Statistics to Help Your Program. C. Burnham, Reflection, Assessment, and Articulation: A Rhetoric of Writing Program Administration. A-M. Hall, Expanding the Community: A Comprehensive Look at Outreach and Articulation. J.K. Ferganchick, Contrapower Harassment in Program Administration: Establishing Teacher Authority. K.S. McAllister, C.L. Selfe, Writing Program Administration and Instructional Computing. C.P. Haviland, D. Stephenson, Writing Centers, Writing Programs, and WPAs: Roles by Any Other Names? M. Morgan, The GTA Experience: Grounding, Practicing, Evaluating, and Reflecting. A. Brobbel, M. Hinojosa, C. Nowotny-Young, S. Penfield, D.R. Ransdell, M. Robinson, D. Scagliotta, E. Toso, T. Warnock, J.D. White, GAT Training in Collaborative Teaching at the University of Arizona. V. Holmsten, This Site Under Construction: Negotiating Space for WPA Work in the Community College. M.A. Townsend, Writing Across the Curriculum. B.M. Maid, More Than a Room of Our Own: Building an Independent Department of Writing. R. Jackson, P. Wojahn, Issues in Writing Program Administration: A Select Annotated Bibliography. Appendices: Portland Resolution. Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Administration. WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition.","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70474614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the Twenty-First Century","authors":"Robert R. Johnson, B. Mirel, R. Spilka","doi":"10.2307/3594191","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3594191","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3594191","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69175732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I. Theorizing Our Writing Programs 1. Ideology, Theory, and the Genre of Writing Programs, Jeanne Gunner 2. Breaking Hierarchies: Using Reflective Practice to Re-Construct the Role of the Writing Program Administrator, Susan Popham, Michael Neal, Ellen Schendel & Brian Huot 3. Writing Programs as Phenomenological Communities, Thomas Hemmeter 4. On the Road to (Documentary) Reality: Capturing the Intellectual and Political Process of Writing Program Administration, Karen Bishop 5. The Writing Program Administrator and the Challenge of Textbooks and Theory, William Lalicker 6. Re-Examining the Theory-Practice Binary in the Work of Writing Program Administrators, Linda K. Shamoon, Robert A. Schwegler, Rebecca Moore Howard & Sandra Jamieson II. Theorizing Writing Program Administration 7. Administration as Emergence: Toward a Rhetorical Theory of Writing Program Administration, Rita Malenczyk 8. Beyond Postmodernism: Leadership Theories and Writing Program Administration, Ruth M. Mirtz & Roxanne M. Cullen 9. Theorizing Ethical Issues in Writing Program Administration, Carrie Leverenz 10. Program Administrators as/and Postmodern Planners: Frameworks for Making Tomorrow's Writing Space, Tim Peeples 11. Opportunities for Consilience: Toward a Network-Based Model for Writing Program Administration, Diane Kelly-Riley, Lisa Johnson-Shull & Bill Condon 12. Writing-Across-the-Curriculum: Contemplating Auteurism and Creativity in Writing Program Direction, Joseph Janangelo 13. Reconsidering and Assessing the Work of Writing Program Administrators, Duane Roen, Barry M. Maid, Gregory R. Glau, John Ramage & David Schwalm 14. Developing Practice Theories through Collaborative Research: Implications for WPA Scholarship, Jeffrey Jablonski 15. Theorizing Writing Program Theorizing, Irwin Weiser & Shirley K Rose
1.将我们的写作计划理论化《意识形态、理论和编程体裁》，珍妮·冈纳著。《打破等级:用反思实践重建写作项目管理者的角色》，Susan Popham, Michael Neal, Ellen Schendel和Brian Huot著。《作为现象学共同体编写程序》，托马斯·亨米特著。在通往(纪录片)现实的道路上:捕捉写作项目管理的智力和政治过程，凯伦·毕晓普著。《写作项目管理者与教科书和理论的挑战》，威廉·拉里克著。《再审视写作项目管理者工作中的理论-实践二元性》，琳达·k·沙莫恩，罗伯特·a·施韦格勒，丽贝卡·摩尔·霍华德和桑德拉·贾米森。写作项目管理理论化《作为涌现的管理:写作项目管理的修辞理论探讨》，丽塔·马伦兹克著。《超越后现代主义:领导理论与写作项目管理》，露丝·m·米尔茨和罗克珊·m·卡伦著。《写作项目管理中的伦理问题理论化》嘉莉·莱维伦茨著《项目管理者与后现代规划者:构建未来写作空间的框架》，蒂姆·皮尔斯著。《协调的机会:迈向基于网络的写作项目管理模式》，黛安·凯利-莱利、丽莎·约翰逊-沙尔和比尔·康登著。《跨课程写作:在写作项目指导中思考自我主义和创造力》，约瑟夫·詹杰洛著。重新思考和评估写作项目管理者的工作，杜安·罗恩，巴里·m·梅德，格雷戈里·r·格劳，约翰·拉梅奇和大卫·施瓦姆14。通过合作研究发展实践理论:对WPA奖学金的启示，Jeffrey Jablonski 15。《写作理论》，Irwin Weiser & Shirley K Rose
{"title":"The writing program administrator as theorist : making knowledge work","authors":"S. Rose, I. Weiser","doi":"10.2307/3594178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3594178","url":null,"abstract":"I. Theorizing Our Writing Programs 1. Ideology, Theory, and the Genre of Writing Programs, Jeanne Gunner 2. Breaking Hierarchies: Using Reflective Practice to Re-Construct the Role of the Writing Program Administrator, Susan Popham, Michael Neal, Ellen Schendel & Brian Huot 3. Writing Programs as Phenomenological Communities, Thomas Hemmeter 4. On the Road to (Documentary) Reality: Capturing the Intellectual and Political Process of Writing Program Administration, Karen Bishop 5. The Writing Program Administrator and the Challenge of Textbooks and Theory, William Lalicker 6. Re-Examining the Theory-Practice Binary in the Work of Writing Program Administrators, Linda K. Shamoon, Robert A. Schwegler, Rebecca Moore Howard & Sandra Jamieson II. Theorizing Writing Program Administration 7. Administration as Emergence: Toward a Rhetorical Theory of Writing Program Administration, Rita Malenczyk 8. Beyond Postmodernism: Leadership Theories and Writing Program Administration, Ruth M. Mirtz & Roxanne M. Cullen 9. Theorizing Ethical Issues in Writing Program Administration, Carrie Leverenz 10. Program Administrators as/and Postmodern Planners: Frameworks for Making Tomorrow's Writing Space, Tim Peeples 11. Opportunities for Consilience: Toward a Network-Based Model for Writing Program Administration, Diane Kelly-Riley, Lisa Johnson-Shull & Bill Condon 12. Writing-Across-the-Curriculum: Contemplating Auteurism and Creativity in Writing Program Direction, Joseph Janangelo 13. Reconsidering and Assessing the Work of Writing Program Administrators, Duane Roen, Barry M. Maid, Gregory R. Glau, John Ramage & David Schwalm 14. Developing Practice Theories through Collaborative Research: Implications for WPA Scholarship, Jeffrey Jablonski 15. Theorizing Writing Program Theorizing, Irwin Weiser & Shirley K Rose","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3594178","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69175372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The CCCC Guidelinesfor the Ethical Treatment of Students and Student Writing in Composition Studies written by Paul Anderson, Davida Charney, Marilyn Cooper, Cristina Kirklighter, Peter Mortensen, and Mark Reynolds provides a common frame to help composition specialists as we navigate and discuss the various ethical dilemmas we face while conducting research. As a graduate student involved in my own qualitative research, I find the Guidelines beneficial, and I am committed to following them, including the first guideline that calls for composition researchers to comply with all Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies.1 However, in the past two years I have submitted proposals for the same study to eleven IRBs at colleges and universities across the country. While I strongly support the need for obtaining IRB approval, I believe as a discipline and as individuals we need to work to revise the IRB process. As it is now practiced at many institutions, the IRB process positions composition researchers and composition research in potentially problematic ways. In fall 2000 when I began my research into the Intercollegiate E-Democracy Project, a national online project where students across the country discuss various social and political issues, I knew I had to mail consent forms to
{"title":"Changing the Process of Institutional Review Board Compliance.","authors":"H. McKee","doi":"10.2307/3594176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3594176","url":null,"abstract":"The CCCC Guidelinesfor the Ethical Treatment of Students and Student Writing in Composition Studies written by Paul Anderson, Davida Charney, Marilyn Cooper, Cristina Kirklighter, Peter Mortensen, and Mark Reynolds provides a common frame to help composition specialists as we navigate and discuss the various ethical dilemmas we face while conducting research. As a graduate student involved in my own qualitative research, I find the Guidelines beneficial, and I am committed to following them, including the first guideline that calls for composition researchers to comply with all Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies.1 However, in the past two years I have submitted proposals for the same study to eleven IRBs at colleges and universities across the country. While I strongly support the need for obtaining IRB approval, I believe as a discipline and as individuals we need to work to revise the IRB process. As it is now practiced at many institutions, the IRB process positions composition researchers and composition research in potentially problematic ways. In fall 2000 when I began my research into the Intercollegiate E-Democracy Project, a national online project where students across the country discuss various social and political issues, I knew I had to mail consent forms to","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3594176","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69175774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I begin with an analogy: teaching research-based argumentation and critique in composition studies is like learning how to perform hip-hop music. My analogy's focus on argumentation does not exclude traditional methods of argumentative pedagogy based on models like Stephen Toulmin's complex hierarchies or the Aristotelian triad of deliberative (offering advice), forensic (taking a side in a debate, often a legal or controversial matter), and epideictic (a speech of praise or blame appealing to an already won-over audience) discourse. Instead, I pose the analogy as a first step towards developing alternative or additional ways to engage composition students with the argumentative essay. In choosing hip-hop as a model for the composition essay, I attempt to draw upon a dominant form of contemporary culture familiar to the majority of students I encounter in my classrooms. Does a relationship between hip-hop and com-
{"title":"The 1963 Hip-Hop Machine: Hip-Hop Pedagogy as Composition.","authors":"J. Rice","doi":"10.2307/3594173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3594173","url":null,"abstract":"I begin with an analogy: teaching research-based argumentation and critique in composition studies is like learning how to perform hip-hop music. My analogy's focus on argumentation does not exclude traditional methods of argumentative pedagogy based on models like Stephen Toulmin's complex hierarchies or the Aristotelian triad of deliberative (offering advice), forensic (taking a side in a debate, often a legal or controversial matter), and epideictic (a speech of praise or blame appealing to an already won-over audience) discourse. Instead, I pose the analogy as a first step towards developing alternative or additional ways to engage composition students with the argumentative essay. In choosing hip-hop as a model for the composition essay, I attempt to draw upon a dominant form of contemporary culture familiar to the majority of students I encounter in my classrooms. Does a relationship between hip-hop and com-","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3594173","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69175699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Punctuation is often learned without teaching and more often not learned despite much teaching. Jointly, these facts suggest that real punctuation decision rules are very different from and probably much simpler than the rules we teach. This article argues that the punctuation system does have features that generally make systems learnable, such as binary contrasts, limitation of parallel categories to seven or fewer options, and repeated application of the same criterion to different kinds of entities. The simplicity that allows some readers to learn this system unconsciously also makes it possible to
{"title":"Point Counterpoint: Teaching Punctuation as Information Management.","authors":"N. Mann","doi":"10.2307/3594170","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3594170","url":null,"abstract":"Punctuation is often learned without teaching and more often not learned despite much teaching. Jointly, these facts suggest that real punctuation decision rules are very different from and probably much simpler than the rules we teach. This article argues that the punctuation system does have features that generally make systems learnable, such as binary contrasts, limitation of parallel categories to seven or fewer options, and repeated application of the same criterion to different kinds of entities. The simplicity that allows some readers to learn this system unconsciously also makes it possible to","PeriodicalId":47107,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3594170","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69175618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：