STRONG RESPONSE BLOGS

 STRONG RESPONSE 1  (WARNE-STRASSER)

Luis Diaz Carrasco

Profesor Gregory

ENC-1101

March 4,2019.

In this unit, I’m asked to write strong responses to previous articles from Unit 1 by analyzing and comparing them. In this assignment, I analyzed and compared Strasser’s text with Wa text. I will be speaking about their similarities, as well I’ll contrasting the rhetorical context of each one. After going through the articles, it is important to have in mind that prevails the idea that an individualized and personal experience when it comes to the process of writing is critical to develop one’s own skills as a writer.

As mentioned in other of my responses, Warne’s article, “Writing Steps: A Recursive and Individual Experience”, Warne, who is an English teacher, shared what she found when teaching some of her high school students. She found flaws in how following the conventional writing steps did not let students develop a beneficial writing process, but instead a difficult one to undergo. She used two of her students as subjects, where each student had his own difficulty when writing. Throughout, Warne encountered flaws in her teaching as well as in her students and solved it by approaching each student personally and not as a group, making each student go through their own analysis to find their adequate writing process and find themselves as good writers. Warne concluded that the general writing steps and the general writing process should be reminded but each person has to go through their individual process to gain results.

Now, in Strasser’s, “Writing What Matters: A Student’s Struggle To Bridge The Academic/ Personal Divide”, Emily Strasser, who is a college student, argued about the flaws in the education and teaching system and how it affects students as writers. She gave examples of two different group of students that followed different paths of teaching in writing. One group followed a conventional approach in writing, where what only mattered was grammar and style. The other group followed an approach to writing where the key components to becoming a good writer were: personal experiences, interest, and ideas. Strasser herself, being an apprentice of the second method of teaching, supported that a unique and personal process should be emphasized when becoming writers. She criticized systematical or generalized writing because it disables the development of complexity and their abilities to construct a complicated grammatical structure, in other words, it gave students superficial writing skills.

In Strasser’s text, the appeal to logic is at its finest. Strasser gives the readers reasoning and argumentation, it has facts, and a comparison between groups which can be accounted for as a study. Both Strasser and Warne give credibility to the reader based on the knowledge they portray, making the reader feel that the authors are trustworthy. Warne accomplished that by narrating her hands-on results when she was helping her students improve their writing, as well as Strasser, did it by giving results of previous experiences. The fact that Warne is an English teacher and that Strasser is a college student gives them credibility because you expect them to have insightful knowledge on the subject of writing. Both authors persuade the reader from a 1st person point of view, meaning they took more of a personal approach in their text making it possible for the reader to connect and relate to what they were discussing.

Strasser and Warne had the same general idea, that an individualized and personal experience when it comes to the process of writing is critical to developing skills to become a good writer.

They both argue that systematical and generalized processes of writing do not allow students to wallow in complexity because they don’t have personal experiences to apply to their writing. The two authors imply that a personal and individual process is beneficial for students to become good writers because enables self-empowerment and it inspires creativity.

In conclusion, I agree that systematical and generalized writing disables development of complexity and the ability to construct complicated grammatical structures. I believe that being too general or too systematic, only create superficial skills in students. I feel that personal experience is an important factor when writing because each person can do better as a writer in their own individual way, and I relate to this as in some occasions I have seen that some styles of writing fit me better than the ones other students use. It always comes down to the personal style of writing and the different approaches of the writing process.

I personally think that these flaws are due to the educational system and it has translated into the teaching environment, where teachers do not emphasize on each individual and their personal experience. There should be a sense of importance for students to be able to critically analyze and think rhetorically because it helps the student to understand his writing. The individualized and personal experience should be prioritized when it comes to the process of writing so students can develop their skills as writers and be well prepared.

STRONG RESPONSE 2  (WARNE-BRANSON)

Luis Diaz Carrasco

Professor Gregory

ENC – 1101

March 4, 2019.

​

In this strong response for Unit 2, I chose Branson’s article to compare it to my Unit 1 text by Warne. I will be comparing them and analyzing them accordingly. As well, I will give my personal opinion on the subjects of the two texts. I chose these two texts because they were very similar and both authors highlighted how structured writing, which contains: argument, audience, and purpose, is prioritized, instead of a more in-depth process, where students brainstorm and revise their work.

“Writing Steps: A Recursive and Individual Experience”, by Warne, an English teacher, shares with us what she stumbles upon while teaching high school students. She explains that when following the conventional writing steps, students were having a difficult time developing a beneficial writing process, making the student feel stuck and that they could not become efficient writers. The students she used as subjects, each had his own difficulty when working on their writing. In addition, Warne was able to find defects in her teaching as well as in her students. She found a way to solve it by approaching each student individually, making that each student could undergo their own reasoning. Following that guideline, students were able to recognize what was wrong with their writing process, better understanding themselves as writers. Warne concluded that the general writing steps and the general writing process each person has to go through their own personal reasoning to become good writers.

In, “First-Year Composition Prepares Students For Academic Writing” Tyler Branson, who is an English teacher as well, argues that there is this wrong picture that people have on first-year writing courses. It is mostly the outdated view of first-year writing where it seems like it is only a “training” for people to learn how to write correctly. Branson criticizes the focus incorrectness and efficiency and not on content, where good writing was correct writing. Good writing is by counting how many errors you had, but even though correctness is important it shouldn’t be the only aspect emphasized. Branson even states that this style of teaching produces college graduates that at their level still cannot write a clear and coherent sentence. Branson concludes his article blaming this on professors for not teaching adequately what is really important, which is the in-depth process of analyzing oneself as a writer.

Branson and Warne are both English teachers that find conventional writing not efficient for students. They both provide multiple facts, Warne does it by explaining her example on her students and the positive results she obtained from her students; where Branson cites other known authors with factual evidence and also gives his own insight on the subject. Because of the authors being teachers, one at the college level and the other at the high school level, it gives a lot of credibility to their statements, making the audience trust what they are saying. I think that Branson did a better job persuading the reader than Warne because of his professionalism in his writing, but it is expected due to the level of education he has to teach.

Because of the facts that Branson provide as evidence, I agree that teaching grammar and mechanics does not improve writing in students. The structured writing that is being prioritized is not instructing students the right way. Just implementing in students what is right and wrong only develop superficial skills. Writing should be a process that involves brainstorming and revising. Students need to learn how to go in depth when writing, to be able to make connections and relate their writings to the real world.

I can relate to what these authors are exposing in their texts. There have been times where the way of teaching was not helping me develop my skills as a writer because they only wanted me to focus on the right and wrongs. The advice that Branson and Warne give would be very helpful for all students, from high school to college, who are struggling, find a way to incorporate their brainstorming and their experiences to their writing. If we want to enrich students in their writing development, as Branson said, “Getting smarter about the purpose of writing means vanquishing one of the worst ideas about writing: that it consists of mechanical, prescribed, product-centered, decontextualized instruction in language”, we need to go away from the product mindset and rather focus on the process.