Describes a first-year college composition course and the daily preparatory writing assignments, “inquiry response papers,” that form its core. Describes how these assignments, in which students respond to their homework reading, have led to a collaborative, dialogic classroom where students realize and express their own voices, and have fostered a more intrinsic motivation within students.

Reviews six books: Mina P. Shaughnessy: Her Life and Work, by Jane Maher reviewed by Judith A. (Jay) Wootten; Your Choice: A Basic Writing Guide with Readings, by Kate Mangelsdorf and Evelyn Posey reviewed by Lynn Summer; Constructing Knowledges: The Politics of Theory Building and Pedagogy in Composition, by Sidney I. Dobrin reviewed by Julie Drew; Academic Advancement in Composition Studies: Scholarship, Publication, Promotion, Tenure, ed. by Richard C. Gebhardt and Barbara Genelle Smith Gebhardt; Publishing in Rhetoric and Composition, ed. by Gary A. Olson and Todd Taylor; Writing for Academic Publication, by Frank Parker and Kathryn Riley reviewed by Cynthia Simpson.

Argues that, to deal effectively with sentence errors of basic writers, it is crucial to distinguish between what should be left alone and what can be productively marked and how it should be marked. Proposes a taxonomy of four sources of errors (knowledge, dialect, process, and developmental errors) and seven ways to address them.

Describes how one teacher uses life writing (reading and writing about transformative life experiences) in her basic writing class to engage students and to help them understand the power and purpose of reaching out to a variety of audiences. Discusses grading life writing.

Unlike purely process-orientated approaches, which hold that skills are acquired intuitively through writing and revising, strategic writing instruction sees the acquisition of key skills as integrally related to effective self-expression. Based on extensive research, the book describes how teachers and students can work together to develop writing strategies - thinking procedures for solving problems ranging from spelling a word correctly to planning a whole project. Illustrative case studies demonstrate how the co-construction and implementation of writing strategies can help students formulate and achieve their own personal writing goals.

Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: The Online Protests over Lotus Marketplace and the Clipper Chip by Laura Gurak. New Haven: Yale UP, 1997. 181 pp. Mina P. Shaughnessy: Her Life and Work by Jane Maher. Urbana: NCTE, 1997. 331 pp. Rhetoric and Pluralism: Legacies of Wayne Booth, edited by Frederick J. Antczak. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1995. 335 pp. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction by Jonathan Potter. London: SAGE Publications, 1996. The Emperor's New Clothes: Literature, Literacy, and the Ideology of Style by Kathryn T. Flannery. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1995. 240 pp.

Argues that the labels "basic" or "developmental" as applied to students often obscure the complexities of knowing who is underprepared for what, kinds of barriers that countermand mastery, and instructors’ roles in helping construct these barriers. Views closely the behaviors by which four students in a developmental writing class presented themselves.

Contends that developmental writing students’ self confidence improves when they understand their learning styles. Outlines how the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is used to pinpoint students’ learning styles and how to help students work "their way."

Considers why basic writers write in "phrases patched upon phrases." Examines how language is patterned and acquired to clarify a framework for teaching basic writers. States that speaking and writing, two different ways of organizing and presenting information, have different structures. Explores what cognitive psychology can say about how the mind processes and produces language.

Diane Allen, in "Tapping the Sources Within: A Three-Step Approach", gives a strategy for helping basic writing students develop better essays with stronger voices.

Preview this article: Computers, Reading, and Basic Writers: Online Strategies for Helping Students with Academic Texts, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/tetyc/23/3/teachingenglishinthetwoyearcollege5490-1.gif

Using diverse texts to critically examine America’s melting pot ideal supports basic writing students’ successful matriculation through rhetorically and socially challenging locations.

Preview this article: Discoursing Basic Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/47/2/collegecompositionandcommunication8700-1.gif

Housewives and Compositionists Akua Duku Anokye Mapping the Terrain of Tracks and Streams Suellynn Duffey What’s It Worth and What’s It For? Revisions to Basic Writing Revisited Judith Rodby

I think basic writing programs have become expressions of our desire to produce basic writers, to maintain the course, the argument, and the slot in the university community: to maintain the distinction (basic/normal) we have learned to think through and by. The basic writing program, then, can be seen simultaneously as an attempt to bridge and preserve cultural difference, to enable students to enter the normal curriculum but to insure, at the

its principles in the linguistic formulation of Newspeak in 1984, I am surprised to have searched Orwell scholarship unsuccessfully for a specifically rhetorical treatment of the essay. Briefly analytic (and critical) is AlbertJ. Brouse's 1974 note registering his disagreement with Orwell's criticism of Harold Laski's prose in the former's list of not especially bad examples of English as it is now habitually written. Brouse feels that Orwell should be stripped of the golden essay award for the most anthologized essay in college texts on the basis of a miscount of negatives in one of the pieces Orwell attacks (Brouse argues that there are really seven negatives in the sentence rather than, as Orwell would have it, five). The closest to a developed analysis is Cleo McNelly's 1977 On Not Teaching Orwell, in which the first two sentences of Politics are shown, in a long paragraph, to be rhetorically complex, and thus, from McNelly's perspective (following Mina Shaughnessy's Errors and Expectations of the same year), unsuitable for the basic or developmental writing student, as is the entire essay, in that Orwell will fail [the student] as a guide, if not as a model as well (557). Shaughnessy writes of Orwell's plain style, To urge a student to emulate such 'simplicity' without exploring it thoroughly is to push him far beyond his verbal resources and encourage the very formalese a writer such as Orwell was careful to avoid (196-97). McNelly's and Shaughnessy's points, in terms of my essay, bear, as noted, on the uses of Politics as a model or

shot through as the term is with local contexts, different approaches, and standardized grammar tests. Any article or research report on writing has to be read carefully for how its author describes writing. are equally elusive. Sometimes they are called remedial, implying that they are retaking courses in material that already should have been mastered. Sometimes they are called developmental, suggesting a cognitive or psychological problem. At other times and in other places, they may be called Educational Opportunity Students, suggesting division by access to education. Or they are just basic, requiring foundational or fundamental instruction in writing. As a case in point, several years ago, I wrote an article, on the writing program at Indiana UniversityIndianapolis, published in the Journal of Basic Writing. Impossibly, it seemed to me, I found an article on Harvard University's writers in the same issue in which my own article appeared. Surely, we weren't talking about the same students, nor the same writing. And, indeed, we were not. While the students I wrote about were having trouble producing any text, even text with attendant problems in organization and mechanics, the Harvard students were instead having problems with originality, creativity, and elaborating arguments (Armstrong 70-72). Yet the presence of basic is tenacious in English departments and we might want to ask ourselves why the term-which seems only to give some vague indication of a deficiency-continues to signify something important to us. The signification of the term is often masked by the way basic is

Preview this article: Resisting Privilege: Basic Writing and Foucault's Author Function, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/45/3/collegecompositionandcommunication8776-1.gif

Two articles in the December 1992 College English presented historical perspectives on the field of Basic Writing. In "Conflict and Struggle: The Enemies or Preconditions of Basic Writing?" Min-Zhan Lu argued for the value of a pedagogy in which conflict and struggle help Basic Writers to reposition themselves; she suggested that resistance to such a pedagogy is traceable to three pioneers in the field, Kenneth Bruffee, Thomas Farrell, and Mina Shaughnessy, and the historical context in which they worked. In "Waiting for an Aristotle, " Paul Hunter analyzed the special issue of the Journal of Basic Writing published in 1980 as a memorial to Mina Shaughnessy, finding a conservative impulse both in its structure and in its reading of Shaughnessy's message. This symposium presents several commentaries on Lu 's and Hunter's articles, followed by the authors' responses. Sources for all contributions to the Symposium are combined in a common Works Cited list at the end.

Preview this article: SYMPOSIUM on: Basic Writing, Conflict and Struggle, and The Legacy of Mina Shaughnessy, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/55/8/collegeenglish9264-1.gif

In 1976 Mina Shaughnessy invoked the phrase converting the natives (235) describe an undesirable attitude for a teacher of composition. In her article Diving In: An Introduction Basic Writing, she outlines four stages of development for composition teachers, of which converting the natives is the second. The tendency of teachers at this stage is see themselves as missionaries who initiate the unenlightened into the true path of correct writing. At this stage the teacher's goal is to carry the technology of advanced literacy the inhabitants of an underdeveloped country (235). Joseph Harris also mentions the term conversion in his 1989 critique of the use of discourse communities in the composition classroom (16). We have, Harris suggests, pictured various discourse communities as fundamentally different, in fact, so fundamentally different that we are at a loss explain how students make the break with former communities in order enter new communities. Harris describes the way we have tended think of students

This article presents insights about writing development of urban college students that can be gleaned from longitudinal research that examines both personal and academic histories. Factors in students' lives, revealed through ongoing interviews and classroom observations, influence both students' abilities to respond to certain types of reading and writing tasks and their potential to develop as successful college students. A set of categories developed by Larson is used to analyze the texts produced by a basic writing student in her first 3½ years of college to illustrate the richness and complexity of analysis available through longitudinal research.

Preview this article: Conflict and Struggle: The Enemies or Preconditions of Basic Writing?, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/54/8/collegeenglish9344-1.gif

Preview this article: "Waiting for an Aristotle": A Moment in the History of the Basic Writing Movement, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/54/8/collegeenglish9345-1.gif

At the Point of Need is a richly detailed account of the experiences of teachers, tutors, and students over a five-year period in a university writing center, whose main mission was to enable basic and ESL writers to handle college writing demands. By and large, it's a success story, with implications and applications far beyond the purview of that particular writing center. Essentially, it wasn't broad knowledge of teaching or writing that these teachers and basic writers needed. What they needed was permission and encouragement to evaluate their own work; a way to evaluate it for themselves while including feedback from others; peers to help them brainstorm things to try when they got stuck; support for trying the unconventional; and freedom from constant impersonal assessment.

This is the first book-length study of the status of composition in English studies and the uneasy relationship between composition and literature. Composition studies and institutional histories of English studies have long needed this kind of clarification of the historical and political contexts of composition teaching, research, and administration. Susan Miller argues that composition constitutes a major national industry, citing the four million freshman-level students enrolled in such courses each year, the $40 million annual expenditure for textbooks, and the more than $50 million in teacher salaries. But this concrete magnitude is not expressed in political power within departments. Miller calls on her associates in composition to engage in a persistent critique of the social practices and political agenda of the discipline that have been responsible for its institutional marginalization. Drawing on her own long experience as a composition administrator, teacher, and scholar, as well as on a national survey of composition professionals, Miller argues that composition teachers inadvertently continue to foster the negative myth about composition' s place in the English studies hierarchy by assuming an assigned, self-sacrificial cultural identity. Composition has been regarded as subcollegiate, practical, a how-to, and has been denied intellectual rigor in order to preserve literature' s presentations of quasi-religious textual ideals. Winner of three major book awards: The Modern Language Association' s Mina P. Shaughnessy Prize The Conference on College Composition and Communication' s Outstanding Book Award The Teachers of Advanced Composition' s W. Ross Winterowd Award

Preview this article: The World Was Stone Cold: Basic Writing in an Urban University, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/53/6/collegeenglish9556-1.gif

“CCCC Bibliography of Composition and Rhetoric, 1988”, Erika Lindemann and Mary Beth Harding Lynn Z. Bloom “Research in Basic Writing: A Bibliographic Sourcebook”, Michael G. Moran and Martin J. Jacobi LisaJ. McClure “The Writing Teacher as Researcher: Essays in the Theory and Practice of Class-Based Research”, Donald A. Daiker and Max Morenberg Shirley K Rose “Personality and the Teaching of Composition”, George H. Jensen and John K. DiTiberio Lynn Quitman Troyka “Farther Along: Transforming Dichotomieisn Rhetoric and Composition”, Kate Ronald and Hephzibah Roskelly Catherine E. Lamb “Writing Better Computer User Documentation: From Paper to Hypertext”, R. John Brockmann Designing and “Writing Online Documentation: Help Files to Hypertext”, William K. Horton Stephen A. Bernhardt “Modern Rhetorical Criticism”, Roderick P. Hart Timothy W. Crusius “Oral and Written Communication: Historical Approaches”, Richard Leo Enos Thomas J. Farrell The Older Sophists, Rosamond Kent Sprague Richard Leo Enos The Student’s Guide to Good Writing: Building Writing Skills for Success in College, Rick Dalton and Marianne Dalton Charles W. Bridges

Introduction Social Science Perspectives Who are Basic Writers? by Andrea Lunsford and Patricia A. Sullivan Development Psychology and Basic Writers by Donna Haisty Winchell Literacy Theory and Basic Writing by Mariolina Salvatori and Glynda Hull Linguistic Perspectives Modern Grammar and Basic Writers by Ronald F. Lunsford Dialects and Basic Writers by Michael Montgomery TESL Research and Basic Writing by Sue Render Pedalogical Perspectives Basic Writing Courses and Programs by Michael D. Hood Computers and Writing Instruction by Stephen A. Bernhardt and Patricia G. Wojahn Writing Laboratories and Basic Writing by Donna Beth Nelson Preparing Teachers of Basic Writing by Richard Filloy Appendix: Selective Bibliography of Basic Writing Textbooks by Mary Sue Ply Name Index Subject Index

Despite the advent of computerized spelling checkers, being a poor speller is still asignificant burden for a writer. Spelling errors are stigmatizing, considered a mark of illiteracy both in academia and in business. Occasions for spelling errors are far more frequent than are opportunities for other errors, and misspellings arc more noticeable. Relatively few readers respond to comma splices or dangling participles, but virtually everyone reacts to "dosen't" or "stuped" or "thair." For the poor speller, writing, particularly in impromptu situations, is a gamble; spelling errors always threaten to sabotage the communication. Since spelling instruction is usually not part of the firstyear composition curriculum -even in a basic writing course, only some students will be poor spellers -assistance with spelling problems should become a regular part of a writing center program; it may be the only resource available to students who need help.

Preview this article: Transference and Resistance in the Basic Writing Classroom: Problematics and Praxis, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/40/2/collegecompositionandcommunication11131-1.gif

Preview this article: The Effect of Word Processing on the Quality of Basic Writers' Revisions, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/22/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15535-1.gif

Preview this article: Text Revisions by Basic Writers: From Impromptu First Draft to Take-Home Revision, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/22/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15544-1.gif

Classrooms filled with glassy-eyed students provide an experiential base for Alice S. Horning s new comprehensive theory about basic writers.Horning explores the theory of writing acquisition in detail. Her examination of spoken and written language and redundancy give a theoretical base to her argument that academic discourse is a separate linguistic system characterized by particular psycholinguistic features. She proposes that basic writers learn to write as other learners master a second language because for them, academic written English is a whole new language.She explores the many connections to be found in second language acquisition research to the teaching and learning of writing and gives special attention to the interlanguage hypothesis, pidginization theory, and the Monitor theory. She also addresses the role of affective factors (feelings, attitudes, emotions, and motivation) in the success or failure of writing students.