Introduction to Writing Studies
Welcome to Introduction to Writing Studies, a course geared towards examining the dynamism of writing. In today's hyper-connective world with continuously evolving technologies, the demands of communication continue to grow and transform as the writing spaces we inhabit continue to develop and shift. Beyond our examination of the ways emerging technologies and web based writing spaces transform writing and communication, we will also examine the discipline of rhetoric. We will examine how communities of practice (also known as discourse communities) shape writing practices, utilize genres, and communicate in intricate ways to achieve goals. Our exploration will also examine the constructedness of writing to better understand how writers produce texts, how readers construct meaning from texts, and how misconceptions of writing practices emerge. Additionally, we will look at how our perceptions of writing are shaped by past experiences and explore how our writing processes work (or at times do not work).
No one can be certain of how modes and ways of communication will transform and develop over the next few decades, but if recent developments in connectivity and information exchange are any indication of the road ahead, we should expect the evolution of how communication happens to transform with increasing rapidity. What kinds of communication and writing will you be doing in ten years? How will the communities within which you participate shape modes of communication? What kinds of identities will you assume as you write and communicate in new and more highly sophisticated ways?
The aforementioned questions are tough to answer, and even the brightest minds of today have trouble predicting exactly what to expect. Though no one is certain of what the future will hold, this course is geared towards preparing you for a new world of hyper-interactive communication. In many ways we are already living in a world of hyper-communication. With text messages, tweets, status updates, blogs, chat rooms, online games, Skype, and other genres, we are communicating in complex ways that were considered science-fiction just two decades ago.
Many people are already part of online communities such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or YouTube, Instagram, and Tumblr, and on some level those digital communication spaces are mediating how communication happens, but new modes of communication are always emerging. On the surface we use different modes of communication often, but for the final assignment of this course, your goal is to closely examine a community to understand the subtle intricacies of the community and how those impact communication. You are welcome to investigate either a digital community or a physical community. You might start your investigation by addressing some of the following questions: What types of identities are developed within the community you are studying? How is power brokered in the community? What is communication supposed to do in the community?
Unit 1: A study of your psychology of literacy: Where are you going, Where have you been?
The first unit of the course examines your literate past and how you became the reader and writer you are today. Unit one calls you to to think critically about past moments, experiences, and relationships that impacted your literacy development. Who were the people who shaped your conception of what good writing is? How have your reading and writing habits been influenced by people or institutions? How have your conceptions of yourself as a reader and writer developed over time and what what factors have been most influential?
Unit 2: Deconstructing the bridge to nowhere: Exploring how writing is constructed and how writing constructs develop
The second unit explores how language and writing are constructed and examines writing conventions across different contexts. For many years of high school, middle school, and even grade school, students are inundated with 'rules' that are set up to produce better writers. However, there often isn't enough attention focused on why conventions develop as they do. Unit three explores the constructedness of writing from the perspective of rhetorical theory. Any situation is rhetorical when communication is used to try and convince another to change a perspective, take action, or adopt a new position. Something as simple as telling a friend that his room feels warm is rhetorical because the speaker is using language to persuade the listener to take action to make the room more comfortable. The final paper of this unit calls you to deliver a rhetorical analysis of an essay contest of your choosing, and then write the contest essay itself.
Unit 3: A study of your cognition of writing processes: What is it that you do when you compose?
The third unit explores writing processes and calls you to examine how you think while writing. Are there triggers that block or impede the progress of a draft? How do you define the stages of your writing process? What kinds of situations cause you to have a brief spat of writer's block? Through our study in unit three, you should come to a new understanding regarding your writing practice.
Unit 4: Contextualizing digital writing spaces: an examination of how online communities communicate
The final unit explores how discourse communities shape writing. If one is in a flag football practice, the community's practices will dictate certain communication conventions as acceptable, but those same conventions are not acceptable in other communities. Communication is dynamic and is contingent upon recurring rhetorical situations experienced by discourse communities. How you might write in a blogging community called the Liberal Activists will be very different from how you write and communicate in your biology class. This final unit asks you to investigate the communication practices of a discourse community. Examining recurring rhetorical situations that call for communication, specific genres used to accomplish community goals, and conventions that dictate community practices will allow you to see new communication dynamics operating within the community you are investigating.
___________________________________________________________
The four units we cover intend to meet the following course outcomes, and at the commencement of the term, students should:
1. demonstrate awareness of rhetoric and an understanding of the constituents of rhetoric
2. demonstrate understanding of one's own writing process from both cognitive and psychological perspectives
3. ascertain an understanding of how discourse communities shape, mediate, and otherwise influence writing and reading practices
4. demonstrate an improved ability to understand complex texts
5. demonstrate an ability to examine and synthesize data
6. recognize various inclinations of what literacy is
7. understand ways in which genres enable discourse
8. demonstrate an ability to utilize evidence to support arguments

This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTara Gray
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 OM06
Part 1 –
It was a Friday night around six o’clock and Joseph Williams decided to go to the bar to get a drink and relax after work. While there, he ran into his friend William Zinsser, who just happened to finish reading Williams work, “The Phenomenology of Error.”
Williams: Hey William! Long time no see, how’ve you been?
Zinsser: I’ve been good, but I just finished reading your essay “The Phenomenology of Error” and I was wondering if we could discuss a few points that you made?
Williams: Yeah, of course, what would you like to talk about?
Zinsser: Well, for starters, I was wondering why you decided to use one of my essays as an example of error. And I also do not agree with how you think people should react to grammatical errors. In my work “On Writing Well,” you may notice that I use some pretty strong adjectives to describe grammatical errors, yet you think that words like horrible and atrocious should only be used for social errors.
Williams: First off, I did not mean to offend you by using you as an example of error. I simply meant to show that even professional writers like you often use grammatical errors. And as for using harsh adjectives to describe grammatical errors, I believe that linguistic errors should not be treated the same as social errors for the simple fact that when a person makes a grammatical error, they do not ordinarily need to offer an apology for it. Now, I am quite familiar with your work and I have gathered that you believe there is a certain list of “rules” for all types of grammatical errors, is that correct?
Zinsser: Yes, that is correct. Someone’s grammar is either wrong or right, no questions asked. What do you believe about a grammar error being right or wrong?
Williams: Well you see, I believe that someone’s grammar is right or wrong based on if the error is noticed or not. As you can recall from my work, I use a matrix to show if an error is right or wrong. Even though a rule is violated, there is often no response to it, so is it really an error? And then sometimes when a rule is violated, it is noticed and there is a response to it. For example, in Jacques Barzun’s “Simple and Direct,” he stated a grammatical rule and almost immediately violated it. But it went completely unnoticed by him, anyone who proofread it, the editor, the publisher, and by anyone who read his work. So this is an example of when a rule is violated, but there is no response to it.
Zinsser: So what you are saying is that something is only an error if it is noticed and there is a response to it?
Williams: Well, yes, I guess so. As I stated in my essay, “Value becomes a consideration only when we address the matter of which errors we should notice.”
Zinsser: Hmm….that is a very interesting fact. I guess I can see where you are coming from with your beliefs, but I do not think that I agree with them. Anyways, it was very nice talking to you and hopefully I get to see you soon and we can discuss grammar in more detail.
Williams: Yes, it was a pleasure talking to you as well. Have a good evening.
Part 2 –
In Carr’s article “Is Google making us stupid,” he goes to prove that point that the internet is affecting our brains, making them less able to concentrate or focus on a single subject for long periods of time. Although he recognizes the benefits of the internet, he believes that the net is making it harder and harder for him to read long novels or really anything that is long than 2-3 pages without getting distracted. If we us Grant-Davie’s definition of rhetorical situations to analyze this essay, Carr would be the rhetor. His exigence is that he is trying to get people to realize what the internet is really doing to our mind, despite all of its great benefits. He says that our mind is getting used to getting information super-fast from the internet that it cannot focus on anything that does not deliver the information at the same speed as the net.
Lauren Helinger ENC1101-0m06
ReplyDeleteIt's late one Friday night and Joseph Williams is out at his favorite dive bar enjoying some drinks and relaxing after a stressful few months of writing and publishing his newest article. There's only a few regulars in the bar and Williams seems pretty calm, that is until his old pal William Zinsser walks in. Williams knew it wouldn't be long till Zinsser showed up after seeing what was written about him in William's article.
Williams: Hey Will, I knew it wouldn't be long before you tried to find me.
Zinsser: Yeah! Can I talk to you about your something?
Williams: Of course! Whatever you need to say, feel free to say it.
Zinsser: Why, out of everybody you know, did you pick me to degrade in your article?!
Williams: No, no, no, I did not degrade you, I simply used you as an example to explain something to my readers. You were prime for the example, your discretion towards errors in writings was just something else. Do you realize how many different rules there are for following correct grammar? Do you understand that when reading someone's work you should try and focus on the actual message of the writing, not solely the errors?
Zinsser: Your writing was atrocious and it was almost unbearably hard to read due to all of the errors I kept coming across. The fact that you felt the need to mention me in the article didn't make it any easier to read, either.
Williams: I apologize for the unpleasant surprise, but I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say.
Zinsser: I guess I can see where you are coming from, but over 100 intentional errors, really man??
Williams: It was all to prove a point, and I think I did a mighty fine job. We could agree to disagree, but thank you for understanding me.
Zinsser: And that you did, my friend. I just wanted to clear the air with you and I am glad we could discuss. Have a good rest of the night; I look forward to reading your future works.
Williams: Thanks for the understanding, I will see you soon.
Part 2: In Carr's article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” he discuses the struggles we now face due to the growing internet usage and ease of finding out information. If we use Grant-Davie's constituents of rhetoric, we can easily begin to analyze the piece. We know Carr, the one expressing his exigence, is the rhetor. His exigence comes from the issue that he doesn't think the way he used to; he doesn't have the same attention span he did before the answer to any question was right at the click of a mouse and he realizes many others are facing the same problem. His audience is us, the reader who uses the internet and is more than likely experiencing the same thing as well. He makes a point to say in the title that Google is making US stupid, and he says “What the Internet is doing to OUR brains”. A few constraints are present including the technologically inclined way we are educated, and I would say the ease of it would be a constraint as well. Especially for people who have grown up using the internet, it is much easier to type a question or topic into Google than it is to go to the library and look it up which leads most people to only rely on the internet for sources.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAasim Bhimani ENC 1101-0M03
ReplyDeleteThe two communities I plan on exploring are a youth basketball team that my friend coaches and a neuroscience research facility I am currently pursuing an internship in.
1.As a coach for multiple teams in the past, I would be interested in getting insight on how someone else deals with their players and how different players interact with each other. Being able to do this, I would be able to bring knowledge back to the team that I coach. Having an idea on how someone else coaches their own team that I can eventually bring back to myself to help adapt my coaching style for the better is something that I’ve always wanted to do.
2.Since my major is Biomedical Sciences and I wish to pursue a career in Neuroscience Research, I decided to pursue an internship at a facility that does just that. At this facility, I will be able to observe just exactly what my planned future career will hold, while learning about it.