Preview this article: Review Essay: The Social Formation of Technical Communication Studies, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/50/2/collegecompositionandcommunication1329-1.gif

Preview this article: Review Essay: Composition and Campus Diversity: Testing Academic and Social Values, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/50/2/collegecompositionandcommunication1330-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: The Personal as Recitation, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/4/collegecompositionandcommunication3168-1.gif

Effective citizens do more than interpret the world around them - they change it. In Between the Lines, John Schilb shows the role composition could play in enabling students to intervene in civic affairs by suggesting ways they can create their own discourses. When instructors understand and put into practice the latest in theory, they can help students learn how to read and write the lines to initiate change. In addition to looking at the line between the academy and the world at large, Schilb examines traditional barriers within English Departments. He argues that many of them have used theory to reinforce a separation of composition studies and literary studies in both theory and instruction. The book offers a thorough, accessible review of recent developments in both composition and literary theory as well as a fruitful comparison of their respective uses and understandings. The chapters in Part One discuss how composition studies and literary studies have differed in their interpretations of the term rhetoric. Part Two examines the ways in which each has handled the ideas of postmodernism. In Part Three, Schilb compares their new shared interest in personal writing, their different attitudes toward collaboration, and issues that arise when literary theories travel into composition. With this book, readers will benefit from an enriched understanding of the theoretical perspectives, institutional conditions, and pedagogical strategies involved in teaching English.

Preview this article: Review: Refining the Social and Returning to Responsibility: Recent Contextual Studies of Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/3/collegecompositionandcommunication3158-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Critical Pedagogy and Composition Scholarship, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/2/collegecompositionandcommunication3148-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Teaching and Learning As Part of Whose Conversation?, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/1/collegecompositionandcommunication3134-1.gif

This the published version, also found here: http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CCC/1996/0474-dec1996/CCC0474Review.pdf

Preview this article: Review: Out of the Fashion Industry: From Cultural Studies to the Anthropology of Knowledge, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/47/3/collegecompositionandcommunication8694-1.gif

Preview this article: Recent Books, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/47/2/collegecompositionandcommunication8705-1.gif

Power, Genre, and Technology Deborah H. Holdstein This Is Not an Essay Carolyn R. Miller Notes on Postmodern Double Agency and the Arts of Lurking James J. Sosnoski

Preview this article: Review: The Two-Year Community College: Into the 21st Century, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/46/4/collegecompositioncommunication8723-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Proceeding with Caution: Composition in the 90s, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/46/4/collegecompositioncommunication8724-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Uncovering Possibilities for a Constructivist Paradigm for Writing Assessment, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/46/3/collegecompositioncommunication8738-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Rhetorical Analysis of Scientific Texts: Three Major Contributions, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/46/2/collegecompositioncommunication8747-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Women, Rhetoric, Teaching, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/46/1/collegecompositioncommunication8757-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Theorizing Technology While Courting Credibility: Emerging Rhetorics in CAI Scholarship, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/45/4/collegecompositioncommunication8769-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: "Race," Writing, and the Politics of Public Disclosure1, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/45/3/collegecompositionandcommunication8780-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Fragments in Response: An Electronic Discussion of Lester Faigley's Fragments of Rationality, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/45/2/collegecompositionandcommunication8791-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Taking the Social Turn: Teaching Writing Post-Process, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/45/1/collegecompositioncommunication8801-1.gif

Jay L. Robinson, Catherine F. Smith, Response to John Schilb, Review of Conversations on the Written Word: Essays on Language and Literacy, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Dec., 1991), pp. 499-500

This monograph is designed to help English teachers see what it is that the literary theory of deconstruction has to offer them as they pursue their work. The monograph focuses on the implications of deconstruction for the English classroom in American schools. It includes a discussion of Jacques Derrida's philosophy of reading and writing a review of some American critics' reactions to deconstruction and responses made by English teachers to the theory; and an examination of a deconstructive reading of writing pedagogy as it underscores the appropriateness of much of the lore connected with process pedagogy. The monograph also contains an appendix on How to Read Derrida, three pages of endnotes, a brief glossary of deconstructionist terminology, a 70-item list of references, an 11-item list of Derrida works not cited in the text, a 38-item bibliography of works on Derrida and deconstruction, and a 9-item list of exemplary readings on deconstruction. (RAE) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ******,,,,,..********************************************************,,,,,,,,,,,,

Preview this article: Review: Professional Book: The Writer's Mind: Writing as a Mode of Thinking, Janice N. Hays, Phyllis A. Roth, Jon R. Ramsey, and Robert D. Foulke, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/35/3/collegecompositionandcommunication14876-1.gif

Professor Petrosky's review of Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing raises one crucial question I think a review of a writing text should raise: what theoretical assumptions about the psychology of writing underlie this book? However, he uses the occasion to attack an out-moded, logical positivist version of communication theory that treats thought as an object to be transferred and that ignores the constructive nature of both reading and writing. I am perplexed that he reads my book as an example of this position-a position which neither of us holds. communication model, with its senders and receivers, which he attributes to me is, in the book, in fact attributed to its real source (electrical engineers-the work of Shannon and Weaver in the 1940's). I present the model as a familiar but inadequate metaphor the reader will want to go beyond (We often talk about communication as if it were a physical process One problem with this model is that it turns the writer into a delivery boy. .. . This model, however, has a limitation ..). In context, the main function of the two-page passage he cites so extensively was to challenge that very model and to introduce a ten-page section entitled The Creative Reader, which draws on current research describing the constructive nature of reading. Just as writers work with metaphor, intuition, and images, as well as logic, in order to compose, readers likewise build rich and sometimes surprisingly original internal structures in their effort to comprehend. Although Professor Petrosky and I clearly differ on how to write a textbook-on what ideas to value, on how explicit one should try to be about thinking processes-I do not believe that my position or the book itself fits into the unattractive pigeonhole he has in mind. As a teacher, I see no contradiction at all between fostering the experience of discovery, of listening to readers, of reseeing one's own ideas-things we all value and teach towardand asking students to bring a more self-conscious, problem-solving approach to their writing. I have difficulty imagining any serious teacher who would. premise which underlies my commitment to teaching heuristics is that writing is not a rule-governed act; nor is it so essentially mysterious that little can be said about it or taught. My goal is to offer students a repertoire of alternative strategies for dealing with this complex process. Trying to be articulate about the thinking processes you would teach may be risky, but I think it is necessary. In taking a strategic approach to writing, one offers writers some of the power that comes from an awareness of one's own thinking processes and a sense of options. Our discipline is growing in the depth and diversity of its theories. If we

Preview this article: Approaches to Research Writing: A Review of Handbooks with Some Suggestions, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/34/2/collegecompositionandcommunication15285-1.gif

Chapters on doing research in the library are the backwater of English handbooks and rhetorics. Even a cursory survey of the contents of these chapters reveals a strange combination of intimidating lists of indexes, vague-if hopeful-advice about the uses of the card catalogue, and caveats about choosing books carefully and remembering not to steal them. After reading through seventeen introductions to research in twelve currently marketed handbooks, a recently issued guide to the research paper, two popular textbooks, and two widely used technical writing handbooks, I am led to ask 1) what relation exists between what professional researchers do and what the handbooks recommend and describe? 2) what should be the pedagogical goals of these chapters? and 3) how might research writing be taught more effectively ? Professional researchers start with an hypothesis or an observation, not with a topic; they look for answers, not for an exercise in debate; and when they seek out information, professionals scope. They look for every conceivable way to save time and cut through the literature by finding a few trustworthy guides. First, of course, they turn to the telephone to network, to make contact with people who can recommend either experts or publications that present the most recent information. Second, researchers send letters of inquiry to concerned individuals and organizations, a strategy that recognizes that we live and work by committees, institutes, centers, associations, and lobbies that produce thousands of publications, many of which may never appear in traditional bibliographies. Professionals also use automated bibliographic searching, with all of the methods now available for selecting review articles and limiting the field in other ways. Finally, and most important for the purposes of composition teachers, professionals use selected bibliographic tools to find 1) recent studies, 2) review articles, and 3) recent publications that include annotated bibliographies. Here I would emphasize the word selected. It takes time to use

Preview this article: Why Teach Style? A Review-Essay, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/34/1/collegecompositionandcommunication15299-1.gif

James L. Kinneavy's A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse (PrenticeHall, 1971) has contributed much to field of English. Evidence of its impact that it required reading for two NEH seminars-Edward P. J. Corbett's summer seminar at Ohio State and Dudley Bailey's year-long seminar at University of Nebraska. This evident concern and book's recent appearance in paperback (Norton, 1980) prompt a review of its strengths and limitations. Kinneavy clarifies need for order in English studies, but-to use his own term for characterizing field-his work preparadigmatic in that his categories are static and his approach too closely tied to literary criticism to be helpful in Though he intends to rescue from the present anarchy of discipline,' his theory unsatisfactory for many teach composition, largely because he fails to account adequately for rhetorical choices and composing processes. This review will focus on some of underlying reasons for limited success of Kinneavy's theory. Kinneavy seems aware of many of his presuppositions, including his assumption that he can side-step considering rhetorical processes. However, he does not always seem to be aware of implications of his methodological decisions. His decision to analyze the aim which embodied in text itself (49) based on a desire to concentrate on rather than composition. A theory of composition, he argues, would require attention to process of composing, a concern he concludes is not desirable for an analysis of aims (4). He prefers to deal with with the characteristics of text, with decoder, who primary element in any communication situation (49-50). Ironically, though he recognizes rhetorical significance of writer's audience, he fails to perceive that rhetoric, unlike discourse analysis, must deal with process by which texts come into existence. He thus sets out to establish the basic foundations of composition and to provide a framework of research for all areas of dis-

Preview this article: Review: H. Ramsey Fowler, with the Editors of Little, Brown, The Little, Brown Handbook, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/32/3/collegecompositionandcommunication15904-1.gif