Kantz

In Kantz's piece, "Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively," the author examines a typical college student. The student, named by Kantz as Shirley, is a typical college student with an average academic preparation. While Shirley is by no means a poor writer, she has trouble with assignments that require her to write original papers based on textual sources.
When first coming to JMU, or perhaps still to this day, did you have trouble writing researched papers that express original arguments? If so, was it because you misunderstood stories because you read them as stories? Did you expect your source to tell the truth; hence, you equated persuasive writing with making things up? Did you have trouble understanding that facts are a kind of claim and are often used persuasively to create an impression?
I know that was a whole lot at once. But I think that Kantz's claim is a very strong one. When I first came to university, I, too, read sources to find the main ideas and important facts. My main problem was that I expected factual texts to tell me "the truth". Growing up, I had been taught that textbooks were ultimately descriptions of truth. As a result, I felt that such texts would include all of the facts and reconcile conflicts.
As I took more and more writing classes, however, I learned the importance of rhetorical reading. This form of reading gives students a powerful tool for creating persuasive analysis by enabling them to move from simply summarizing to constructing a rationale argument.
Before college, I often wrote papers with a certain plan already in my head, regarding the direction that the paper would take. Now, I discover what is worth writing about as I read sources. I may have some content goals before doing so, but those goals are constantly changing as my understanding of the topic develops further.

Romantic Rhetoric

Do you feel that centering one's teaching style on romantic rhetoric is effective in developing good writers? If so, should it be taught within elementary schools or is there a certain level at which it should be used? If you find the romantic rhetoric style to be ineffective, do you think that the current-traditional approach should be used in American education?

Romantic rhetoric, also known as expressivist rhetoric, is concerned with individual feelings and personal truth. As I read this section of the text, I found benefits both for and against this teaching style. I feel that self expression is very important. The romantic style of teaching gives students the freedom to find their voice by exploring their feelings and thoughts through self-expressive composing. On the other hand, this style of teaching neglects the academic aspect of writing by focusing solely on the individual. In order to be deemed a good writer, a piece must be honest, true, authentic, fun, etc. While these aspects are important, I feel that their needs to be more to it. Students must be able to objectively write about literature and meet academic standards of literacy. Therefore, while romantic rhetoric is beneficial, I feel that a teacher can not solely rely on this teaching method.

Student-Centered Instruction and Writing Workshops

This section of Williams' book was far more interesting than what I read last week. I was able to both understand and relate to what the author was talking about. The section about student-centered instruction, specifically, was very informative. It states, "...the process approach is based on the realization that the key to improving student writing consists of three factors: (a) asking students to write often, in meaningful contexts, (b) providing frequent feedback on work in progress, and (c) requiring numerous revisions based on that feedback" (Williams, 101). I feel that each of these factors is extremely important in the writing process. Do you feel that these factors are important in terms of successfully teaching students to be good writers?

As a journalism major, I write often and I am constantly critiqued by my peers and professors. I feel that my love for writing stems from my childhood. As a kid, my classmates and I were constantly being encouraged to write. As we wrote, we received feedback on our work and suggestions on how to improve. Perhaps most importantly, my teachers didn't make me dread the writing process. It was used as an outlet and a way for me to communicate my feelings. I still see writing in much the same way. I write often. I enjoy receiving feedback. I compose several drafts before submitting a final piece. I think each of these factors are essential and can help individual's become excellent writers.

Williams also discussed writing workshops. That is, teachers ask students to form groups and students practice the behaviors that charactize good writers. Students help each other in the drafting and revising process, while receiving advice and suggestions from their teacher. As Williams states, "These groups become collaborative teams in which students help one another succeed" (Williams, 103). I believe that this is extremely beneficial, as writers focus on writing, discussing drafts, and rewriting; rather than grammar or discussions of literature.
Do you feel that an emphasis should be placed on writing, discussing drafts, and rewriting? Or, do you think that teachers should place a heavy emphasis on grammar and class discussions about literature?