Reading Responses and Reflections

The portions of my response which the comments refer to are in italics.

Response:
Devitt
First, I would like to second Devitts call for the destruction of dichotomies. I am a huge fan of
the idea of the continuum and feel that this concept is much more relevant to basically
everything. To me this article boiled down to a defense of genre and a dedication to the idea that
genres are helpful rather than constraining. Im still not completely sure what side of the line I
fall on in this argument. While I understand Devitts point I think ultimately I would argue that
genre has a negative impact, in the sense that I believe all classification/categorization is by
nature reductive, and therefore negative. I would especially like to draw attention to the sentence
All language constrains the individual. I believe this is true and I am of the Romantic belief
that childhood/innocence is disturbed by language and that life loses its magic through language.
Language tells us Think this way instead of simply think. As an extension of this idea I think
that labeling something as a certain genre necessarily chokes the complexity out of it. One
thing/term I found problematic in this essay was when Devitt suggested that genre is a
template which students can use. Its not that I disagree, it just seems that using the term
template reinforces the idea of genre as container, as in heres the form, now just fill the content
into the correct places. I also wasnt sure about the term violate used in relation to genre.
Violate makes me think of going against a law or some other highly stipulated form, instead of
breaking away from a supposedly non-static concept or idea. Is it valuable to think of genre as
tradition? This word seems a little more open-ended to me. I wrote in the science fiction
tradition feels like it acknowledges the context without exactly having to conform to it. Im also
wondering how tied the evolution of the concept of genre is to the concept of commercialism or
marketing. As Ramsey brings up in his ENC2135 class (in attempt to sway business and
marketing majors into seeing the relevance of the genre paper) genre analysis is a tool that
marketers use consistently. I am also wary of the concept of genre because I have a feeling that
genre started to become an everyday term about the same time that commercialization became
embedded in society. I would certainly argue that genre serves the reader more than the writer.
Comment: Can genre be a way of organizing knowledge? Learning to manipulate a genre could
be beneficial for the writer, right?
Reflection: Yes, genre is a way of organizing knowledge, but while organization is
unquestionably useful to our existence, its also a framework that is imposed on reality for the
sake of convenience. While books are not sentient beings, I think its still worth noting that as
humans we hate being lumped into a group for the sake of categorization. I dont think that the
idea of genre does justice to the true complexity of books, or any other item for that matter. Yes,
manipulating a genre is beneficial to the writer. Still, genre benefits the consumer (it allows us to
choose the appropriate/correct product) more than it benefits the writer who has to curtail her/his
work to the consumers expectations.

Response:
Reiff
First, I would like to thank Reiff for including the list of questions at the beginning of her essay,
as they all seem like useful questions to have our students ask in order to interrogate different
genres. Another part of this essay that I think will be useful come Fall Semester is the part where
Reiff askes her students to study genre in a way that allows them to see the habits, beliefs, and
values of a community. This type of critical thinking feels especially useful and relevant to me.
I will also say that Reiff had the best argument for the genre approach to teaching so far,
namely a genre approach allows students to see a writing assignment as a social action. Here,
Reiff shows how the genre approach situates students work as part of a larger discourse, which I
think is important in the sense that we should make all work have relevance outside the academy
if possible. One thing that struck me in this article is that Reiff refers to other books doing the
same work that the book she is writing for is doing as competing texts. Should we look at texts
within a genre as competing? If we do so, what value is there in thinking about texts within a
genre in this way?
Comment: Theyre competing for the writers attention, I guess. Maybe just a poor word choice
on her part. But I do like thinking about the connectedness of different genres.
Reflection: I enjoy thinking about how texts connect as well - intertextuality is part of the joy of
reading for me. I just think that the competing terminology is yet another hangover from
commercialism. As you point out texts certainly are competing for our money/attention. I just
cant help but be saddened by this thought. I would much rather think of texts as collaborating,
working together to understand reality/truth.
Response:
Shipka
I think this article offered some helpful ideas for teaching. I think that having the student explain
their choices in writing (the heads up statement) is a great idea no matter what the project.
Instead of force feeding a specific process to students, this assignment allows students to see
writing as an individualized process. I wish someone would create a full Prakas-style dictionary.
That sounds like such a fun and useful project. I think I would like to use the OED project in one
my classes at some point. I like how it kind of parallels the know-where-your food-is-from
movement, except this in this instance its a now-where-your-word-is-from movement. One thing
that felt a little odd to me was Shipkas celebration of Mikes business manager role in his
project. Im probably just being cynical but this seemed kind of lazy - in the sense that Mike just
stayed in his comfort zone (apparently a place where he can boss people around) instead of
stepping outside the box and doing something, like possibly acting in his own film, even if thats
not his thing. I did question one aspect of this article: Are teachers equipped to evaluate multimodal sources or systems that use different semiotics than language? While I see the need for the
expansion of composition to include more than just writing, isnt that we are experts in? How
should we be evaluating these multi-modal projects? Perceived effort? The students ability to
meet the goals they set out for themselves?

Comment: Assessment with multimodal project seems more daunting than it is. Our
Composition in 3 Genres project requires that students write a rhetorical rationale, where they
justify their choices and explain their processes. I value these rationales just as much as the final
genres, in my assessment because its here that students operationalize the concepts were
learned and show they only understand genre and their choices as composers.
Reflection: What excellent advice. This makes perfect sense. My follow up questions are Do I
need to let students know that I will be basing most of their grade on the writing portion? If I do
this will this lead to lower quality projects? and Has there ever been a project that was so
shoddy that you didnt give a student credit?
Response:
Straub
I do like the format of the letter, but I wonder at the success of this format with all students. I
know that I personally have sometimes received the letter-shaped feedback and found it hard to
discern what exactly was being asked of me. I think that for some students a visual list of
suggestions/ideas or marginal notes that are connected to specific areas of the writing will help
students understand the feedback more effectively. Another issue I see with this format is that I
think that this format often breeds what I like to think of as the book review type of criticism.
Often, in poetry at least, professors or other students will respond using the letter format and it
will be chock full of abstract comments and useless metaphors. Their responses seem to mimic
the popular book review format in which the critique of the text is of equal artistic quality to the
text itself. I think that type of innovative language should be saved for book reviews and be
kept out of the classroom. Another thing that I wanted to mention was the irony of this essay.
Straub keeps talking to us about the art of suggestion, the importance of inquiry, and of the
conversation. He denounces directive, authoritative teacher student commentary. But if Straub is
the teacher and we are the students, what is Straub being but authoritative and directive? Let it be
said that I thought this was an extremely helpful essay in that it offered solid, specific directions
about how to comment on and engage with students texts. However, nothing about Straub
seemed to be conversational or suggestive; instead he listed out in a numbered set of steps how
he thinks we should comment on student work. Not exactly putting theory into practice in this
sense. My last comment about this text is that Im not sure I ever fully understood the gist of this
statement They make critical comments but cast them in the larger context of help or guidance,
so I hope we will elaborate on this in class tomorrow.
Comment: Could that be the fault of the letter-writer? I almost always use marginal comments
for the reason you listed, but sometimes end notes and/or letters can be effective for
accomplishing other work. Are there times when you think one approach might be more helpful
than the other?

Reflection: Yes, I actually had one professor specifically in mind when I made that comment
about the letter. I thought the letters he wrote were beautiful a piece of art in themselves, but
they only gave me a general impression of the work I turned in, and did not provide me with any
specifics to work on. I think that a blend of marginal comments/letter is best.
Response:
Elbow
Let me begin by saying that the end of this essay was very inspiring. I love that Elbow suggests
that we look for the examples of good organization in a badly organized essay and use the
students own work to point them in the right direction. I had never thought about this before,
and I think this comment will help me both in my teaching and in my writing. That being said, I
was a little annoyed by this essay. Elbow makes fellow teachers his audience for this essay but I
think that in order to effect true change this essay should have been aimed at the administration. I
think that many teachers are frustrated with giving simplistic grades, and although he
acknowledges that we are caught in an era of academia where ranking is considered necessary,
he does little more than offer some strategies for working around the system, which may be
helpful in the short run, but do little in the long run to stop the perpetuation of this somewhat
barbaric system. Again, reading this as a fellow teacher I couldnt help thinking that Elbow had
written this essay from a perspective of privilege. We all know he is a big name in academia, and
that he holds a respected place among the academic establishment. Due to this position he is able
to evaluate ad infinitum with little backlash. However, what about us little guys? If I spend most
the semester evaluating rather than grading and the end of the semester comes along and I slap
on what appears to be one of two grades Elbow deigns to give out a semester, what happens
when a student contests a grade and I need to provide evidence to an academic committee or
thedean for why she/he received this grade? My guess is the admin will have more sympathy for
this type of grading from a well-known academician like Elbow than for me.
Comment: How would you propose making large scale changes?

Reflection: I propose 1) electing officials who are interested in a much larger budget for
education 2) amassing a large amount of research that proves that grades do not result in more
productive/smarter students 3) presenting this data in an appealing way to elected officials 4)
working with legislators to create policies that would allow the grading system to be destroyed 5)
devising a system that would allow intelligent, hardworking students access to the job force 6)
destroying No Child Left Behind. End note: I think competition needs to exist, but that students
shouldnt be reduced to numbers.