Friday, April 27, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
- It deals with communication in a specific context
- It deals with how to structure your writing on the web (such as in blogs or wikibooks).
How Users Read on the WebThey don't.
People rarely read Web pages word by word; instead, they scan the page, picking out individual words and sentences. In research on how people read websites we found that 79 percent of our test users always scanned any new page they came across; only 16 percent read word-by-word. (Update: a newer study found that users read email newsletters even more abruptly than they read websites.)
As a result, Web pages have to employ scannable text, using
More on this at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html.
- highlighted keywords (hypertext links serve as one form of highlighting; typeface variations and color are others)
- meaningful sub-headings (not "clever" ones)
- bulleted lists
- one idea per paragraph (users will skip over any additional ideas if they are not caught by the first few words in the paragraph)
- the inverted pyramid style, starting with the conclusion
- half the word count (or less) than conventional writing************************UPDATE************************
In response to Amy's comment about the rather "old-school" source for this post (circa 1997)), here are a few other links on reading on the web (much more current):
"F-Shaped Pattern..." From the same site, but from 2006.
"Eyetracking..." From a site maintained by USC (March 2007).
There's a video released March 2007 by Poynter Institute explaining the results of their study.
Feel free to leave additional links in the comments if you stumble across other new research.
I especially enjoyed the journal entries (allusive puns and all) and think they raise some very interesting questions, including the following:
“What experiences if any will my students and I share? Do we have to share experiences I order to work together successfully?” (219)
When students ask me to justify my grading “who will I turn to? Bartholomae’s work? Mike Rose’s books? How should I answer such a question?” (220).
“When should I speak, and when should I remain silent?” (222).
Even more interesting questions are posed within the material in the appendix, and the activities seem to provide a great starting place for reflecting on one’s own teaching practices (even though some of it applied only vaguely to my experience as a high school teacher). The fact that the majority of the questions are left unanswered is somehow refreshing as well (I certainly can’t imagine Bartholomae or Lu exercising such restraint), and I think this is a case where asking the right questions proved more effective than attempting to provide the right answers.
Royster, Jacqueline Jones and Rebecca Greenberg Taylor. “Constructing Teacher Identity in the Basic Writing Classroom.” Landmark Essays on Basic Writing. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2001.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Jerrie Cobb Scott complains of “the recycling of deficit pedagogy in basic writing,” citing two key factors: “traditional, technocratic definitions of literacy” and “attitudes that pervasively but persistently resist change” (205).
Scott, Jerrie Cobb. “Literacies and Deficits Revisited.” Landmark Essays on Basic Writing. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2001.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
For instance, Mlynarczyk highlights Bruner’s thoughts on the goals of each type of writing. According to Bruner, Elbow’s personal writing tries “to be evocative, to convince by being true to life, to achieve verisimilitude…[and] often takes the mode of stories” (6). In contrast, Bartholomae’s academic writing “seeks to transcend the particular in order to make valid generalizations...[and] often takes the form of arguments” (6).
Mlynarczyk also presents Britton’s perspective on the two schools of thought. For Britton, personal writing is concerned with producing “‘expressive language,’ exemplified by everyday speech,” while academic writing is concerned with producing “‘referential language,’ exemplified by scientific discourse” (6).
One contrast that I found particularly interesting was the difference in the way Elbow and Bartholomae thought about the role of authority in writing. Elbow focuses on setting up contexts in the classroom where student writers are truly experts on their topics. Usually this means assignments revolving around personal opinions and experiences. Bartholomae on the other hand, seems content to provide an assignment which requires the vantage point of an expert, expecting them to rise to the task by, first, researching the topic and, then, emulating the style, tone, and points-of-view used by true authorities in the field. Bartholomae seems to view Elbow’s approach as too much of a compromise whereas Elbow seems to think of it as meeting the students halfway, introducing them to writing in a way that, if not academic per se, is at least more liberating and less stressful. I, personally, tend to agree with Elbow when it comes to initially approaching the basic writer, but agree that students should also be helped to develop the academic persona in their writing that will eventually be required of them.
*Yes, I am actually nerdy enough to care. In fact, I googled it and at least one source suggests mi-NAR-chik.
“I don’t read anything from the 20th Century.”**
**FYI: That quote doesn't really have anything to do with the article. It's just something Chaz said before class. So don't hurt yourself trying to find the connection. Also, I could not find a picture of Chaz on the web, but I was able to find a picture of his hair and beard before they first met Chaz and became part of what is now known down certain dark alleys of the blogosphere as beardedfury. According to legend, Chaz found his beard in the personals section of The Standard: “Beard seeks head of poet. Likes knock-knock jokes, Chuck Norris movies, dogs, and long walks on the beach. Brunettes only please.” If you want to know more, you’ll have to wait for the E! True Hollywood Story.
(I had another version of this in mind where St. George rips the beard off a dragon and gives it to Chaz in appreciation of his verse, but there was a time machine involved, and I hate time machines. They're so darn implausible.)
Mlynarczyk, Rebecca Williams. "Personal and Academic Writing: Revisiting the Debate." Journal of Basic Writing 25:1 (2006): 4-25.