WorkThe argument that bad grammar habits stem from digital technology is just the most recent of what professor Harvey Daniels call “language panics.” The idea of language panics is “the assertion that new forms of communication signal the end of the world.” (Warnock. 302) With help from linguist Josef Fruehwald, Scott Warnock presents a better idea about textism. Simply that there is no correlation between texting and grammar skills and that students know when to differentiate. They believe students can identify that writing is literary while texting is a form of communication. There have always been complaints about bad grammar skills in teens being linked to digital communication. This is a bad idea not only because there has never been any accurate science behind the theory but because times change, and language evolves with it. In the article “Texting ruins students grammar skills” Scott Warnock debunked some of these theories and offers a better idea about writing. Continue reading
Category Archives: Research Project
Bad Ideas About Writing: Creative Writing is a Unique Category
Aside
Many people can picture themselves writing as a child their favorite memory in class, or writing about slaying a dragon over the winter. That’s what a lot of people imagine when they picture creative writing. However, some see creative writing as writing, while other forms are just put aside. In the book “Bad Ideas About Writing,” Cydney Alexis explains that “People who write everything except poetry and fiction—that is, people who contribute the vast majority of writing to the world in the form of lists, essays, emails, blog posts, texts, instruction manuals, and so on—see their work as less creative and less important.” (Alexis 188) This a really bad idea, as it sidelines other forms of writing and uncreative and unimportant. Creative writing is not just a unique category, but one where all spectrums of writing can be seen under one category. Creative writing should be taught as an equal with all writing styles.
Cydney Alexis states that creative writing has a common misconception to being labeled as ONLY just poetry or fiction. But where does this thought come from? This dates back in the 1800s by D. G. Myers book “The Elephants Teach: Creative Writing since 1880,” where most see creative writing as a “dissent from professionalism” (Myers 7) however, these weren’t really taken seriously by others and disregarded. These thoughts changed, however, when creative writing gave people “a quiet life and an agreeable way to make a dollar” (Myers 8). That’s the stigma we are in today. When we think of “writers” we think of Rick Riordan of The Percy Jackson series or J. K. Rowling writing Harry Potter. However, Myers believes that creative writing doesn’t end on just poems and stories, and is a “craft that can be taught.” (Myers 75) Alexis supports this claim by saying the famous joke of “Those who can’t do, teach” (Alexis 189) which tells us to harvest those creative thoughts, and to continue creating and eliminate negative stereotypes on creative writing.
“Ultimate Harry Potter Book List”-Scholastic
The Identity of a “writer” is seen as “private, secret, and solitary” (Alexis 189) We know those harm what a writer really is, and even harms improving others of being better writers. Creative Writing was initially supposed to ease the schism on writing. Creative writing was supposed to “integrate literary knowledge with literary practice” (Alexis 191) and improve overall skill. Alexis and other teachers are using creative writing in this way Alexis cites Daniel Miller and his chapter on housewives’ shopping lists, that the writers were not using random order for the items, but “listing items to reflect food categories and writing them to reflect their planned future movement through those stores.” (Alexis 191) This reflects creative writing in not poems or stories, but in listing and shop layout. Creative writing is even being used in workshops, where in Grame Harper’s creative workshop, she uses creative writing as a way to build critical thinking. ““[My students] are required to write both creatively and critically.” When the critical is opposed to the creative, it’s easy to understand why public and academic attitudes so pervasively represent persuasive writing as uncreative, particularly when pitted against those in the so-called creative arts.” (Alexis 191) All sights read to creative writing improving not just writing but all-around experiences and lifestyles. 
The Solution for this is simple: Take away the term “creative writing” all forms of writing can use creative writing and can demonstrate creativity without needed a story or poetry. Alexis states that when “they began thinking of themselves as writers, their positive feelings about writing intensified” (Alexis 192) Writers began to enjoy writing when they take away the negative connotation that stems from creative writing, and instead “bring us all together under the banner of writing studies, writing, or writing arts” (Alexis 192) Down with creative writing!
Works Cited
Myers, D. G. “The Elephants Teach: Creative Writing Since 1880”
Alexis Cydney. “Creative Writing is a Unique Category.” Bad Ideas About Writing (187-193) https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf
Student Writing Must Be Graded By The Teacher
“Utah State University Photo”, by Utah State University
How are essays graded by the teacher ? Are they graded by the organization, the topic, or fluent it is? How does a student learn from receiving a letter as feedback ? According to Christopher R Friend in, “Student Writing Must Be Graded By The Teacher”, it’s a bad idea to require student writing to be graded. Friend believes that it is a better idea for teacher to promote reviewing and collaboration. Linda S. Bergmann, further explains in, “The Writing Center As A Site For Engagement.”, the importance of engagement and collaboration.
“I got graded on my English essay”, by Ya_like_jazz, newschoolers.com
In the article, “Student Writing Must Graded By The Teacher”, in Bad Ideas About Writing, Friend explains that a letter grade does 3 things poorly, ” (1) determining whether students understand a concept well enough to implement it, (2) identifying elements of student writing that need improvement, and (3) helping students learn to better self-assess.”( Friend, 275). Friend explains the very reason why letter grades work so poorly. How can anyone learn from something, that poorly teaches you ? Friend suggests that, “Grades help label, sort, and rank students; they don’t inform students, target instruction, or encourage self-awareness.” (Friend, 275), so they can be discouraging to students that struggle.
So what’s the solution according to Christopher R Friend? Peer review. People learn from friends and family, whether it’s tying shoes or learning how to draw. Friend states, “… we should teach people how to improve their writing through peer review. Variations of peer review help us write in many of our day-to-day situations.”, (Friend, 275). Friend goes on to say, ” Teachers could benefit from saved time and energy if they incorporated peer review systems of various flavors in their classes, reducing their workload and providing a variety of feedback for their students.”, (Friend, 275). Why is that peer review works? Because students aren’t just writing to please the teacher. Students have an audience that isn’t seen as an authority figure, such as a teacher (Friend, 273).
“Design peer reviews to support our teams growth”, by Maxence Mauduit
In the article, “The Writing Center as a Cite of Engagement” , Bergmann goes into further detail speaking about how peer review is the most effective ways to learn. Bergmann suggests that writing centers can be beneficial to writing ,because of it’s collaborative nature and are more flexible than traditional English departments and universities (Bergmann, 174). Bergmann states, that not all students may not know who to come to with writing questions in their English department. “One of the reasons that writing centers become sites of engagement is that people looking for various kinds of help, knowledge, and interaction with projects related to writing and literacy often contact effective and visible writing centers.”, (Bergmann, 160). The author gives readers a go to place for their writing questions.
“Edgar Allen Poe Collection”, Harry Ransom center digital collections
In conclusion, it is a bad idea to require student writing to be graded. Students don’t learn anything from a letter nor do they define a student. It is a better idea for teachers to promote peer review and to get students to think critically. When the students main focus turns into grades and not the actual assignment they write only to please the teacher in their writing. There is nothing wrong with teachers grading essays ,but when they only grade papers students don’t get a chance to learn from their mistakes. Students need to be put into peer review collaborations to be able to critically think. It helps students learn, how to use what you learned, and when you see it.
Works Cited
1. Friend, Christopher R. “Student Writing Must Be Graded By The Teacher”, in Bad Ideas About Writing. 273-277.
https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf
2. Bergmann, Linda S. ” The Writing Center As a Cite of Engagement”, in Going Public: What Writing Programs Learn From Engagement. 160-176.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=usupress_pubs
Better Ideas about: How Texting helps Literacy Skills
Professors, Linguists, and even parents have been arguing for many years about the pros and cons of texting, some might argue and say it decreases the students’ ability to use proper grammar and vocabulary, letting students butcher English words freely but others believe it enhances the way we learn about Vocabs and the English language in general. So, the question is, does texting ruins literacy skills? I believe the answer is NO, it doesn’t, and here’s why!
“Texting” By Asterfolio, Unsplash
In the book Bad Ideas About Writing, author Christopher Justice explains the misconception about texting, The title of his essay, and the topic that he signifies the idea that texting destroys one’s ability to have literacy skills. According to,” Texting Ruins Literacy Skills,” Justice argues that it’s just a myth, and stresses that it’s crucial to end this myth.
Justice gives a reason why it’s crucial “One reason is that in many contexts, texting allows writers more time than speech to formulate their thoughts, and like other types of electronic media, texting also allows ample opportunities to revise and organize one’s thoughts. Second, the sudden and rapid popularity of texting is radically disproportionate to illiteracy rates.” (Justice, 310) In another word, a writer can express their ideas or feelings more efficiently by just texting than through talking Furthermore, texting provides clarity of someone’s thoughts. In his second reasoning, the author states, since everyone is texting and most people do not think texting hurts our literacy, if that was true, the literacy rate would’ve decreased and we would’ve stopped texting. Also, it is worth mentioning, this generation is by far literate than any other generation that lived before it.
“Text Notification” by Jamie-street, Unsplash
In Jessica Gross’s TED blog post, “Texting as a “miraculous thing”: 6 ways our generation is redefining communication“, Jessica paraphrases the TED Talk speaker and linguist John McWhorter by writing “texting shouldn’t be categorized as a written language –but as [a] speech.”, Through a linguist perspective, McWhorter strongly believes that texting encourages a strong form of communication through writing, as brief as it may be.
“Message Apps” By Adem AY, Unsplash
There are dozens of slang words and phrases many students text in their everyday communication, such as FYI, WYA, BTW, etc. Justice explains that those abbreviations are not new in the linguist world people have been using abbreviations for many years and we shouldn’t be surprised. Justice further explains “Ultimately, the abbreviated language that characterizes texting discourse is a continuation of a historical trend that reveals how people have creatively used language for conciseness and efficiency,” what he saying is, it’s just a generation difference and creativity that made people think it’s a new trend but history shows that’s not true.
In conclusion, Christopher Justice, Jessica Gross, and Jhon McWhorter’s ideas came together in the essay “Texting Ruins Literacy Skills” on Bad Ideas About Writing. Texting not only improves users’ ability to read and write it is also one of the fastest ways to convey information to others. By texting, one learns how to spell words regularly which enhances one’s Literacy skills.
Works Cited
Justice, Christopher. “Texting Ruins Literacy Skills” in Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E.Ball and Drew M. Loewe, 30-33.
Jessica Gross’s TED blog post, “Texting as a ‘Miraculous Thing’: 6 Ways our Generation is Redefining Communication”
A Bad Idea for Writing: The Passive Voice Should Be Avoided
“Myths Word on Card Index Paper,” SinARTCreative, Unsplash.
Similar to many other false rules discredited in the book Bad Ideas About Writing, the idea that the English passive voice should be avoided at all costs is highly emphasized in writing culture. In Collin Gifford Brooke’s essay “The Passive Voice Should Be Avoided,” he addresses faults in arguments urging the use of the passive voice and proposes a better alternative. With the help of Geoffrey K. Pullum’s “Fear and Loathing of the English Passive,” Brooke concludes that teaching its appropriate uses and allowing writers’ discretion in its usage is a better alternative to avoiding the passive.
One of the most prevalent criticisms leveled at the passive voice is the inexactness it may lend. Because of its ambiguity, the passive voice is often used to label writing as weak and inferior. Brooke explains that “when we consider a single sentence, more often than not, the most direct version will appear to be the better option.” (141). Arguments against the passive fail to consider the reality that writing is often extensive and surrounding sentences are related to one other. Sentences within paragraphs provide context that allows for the appropriate usage of the passive voice, which introduces variety and improves the quality of a writing.
AlexLMX, Unsplash.
Furthermore, advice to choose active over passive for its assertiveness ignores the fact that not “every sentence is supposed to come at you like a punch in the gut…” and erroneously assumes that “passive clauses can’t deliver a gut punch.” (Pullum 19). When writers are fully educated on the proper context for employing the passive voice, they can recognize and recreate these conditions in their work to skillfully integrate the passive. In addition to being able to identify situations where they prefer the passive, they can maintain control over the nuance and subtlety of their work without adhering to the hard and fast rule of always employing the active voice.
“Deception,” Gustavo Muñoz Soriano, Unsplash.
Another common allegation about the passive voice is that it obscures accountability. Critics claim that because the passive voice does not explicitly indicate the subject of the actions within a sentence, it buries the subject and obscures their involvement. This accusation is related to that of the previous paragraphs in that it is derived from poor examples of passive usage. It is not wholly baseless as the passive voice can be used to obscure responsibility, but so can the active. Pullum addresses this in his article, noting that “Omission of the passive complement (not simply use of the passive) permits agents to be left unspecified. … They are not the slightest bit sneaky or evasive when the identity of the agent is either thoroughly irrelevant or entirely unknowable.” (18-19). He explains that ambiguous agents are caused by inappropriate use of the passive, not by the passive itself. Reinforcing the premise that with proper education on how to use the passive voice, writers would not have to obey the rigid rule of avoiding the passive voice.
Brooke also indicates agreement with this in his essay. “The passive voice can certainly be abused, but in the hands of a skilled writer (like Rockmore), it is an invaluable strategy.” (Brooke 143). Additionally, this feature is a grammatical concept that can be employed to ensure cohesive flow and refine a writer’s skill set. Teaching proper passive usage enables writers to make the most of this concept in its proper circumstances. For example, it can be used to introduce elements of suspense to a work of fiction.
“Two People Shaking Hands,” Cytonn Photography, Unsplash.
Throughout their articles and with the help of various examples, both authors make it clear the allegations against the passive voice can be summed up to oversimplification and incorrect understanding/usage of its suitable contexts. Well-meaning advisors and advice recipients are uneducated on the actual context required by the passive; the blind leading the blind. The rational solution is to shed light on effective and befitting passive voice usage by properly teaching it. Both authors are also unified in this conclusion. “We should be teaching writers the skilled application of the passive voice, rather than teaching them to avoid it altogether. Understanding sentences in context rather than isolation would allow writers to take up questions of cohesion and coherence.” (Brooke 143). Brooke suggests that teaching applications of the passive would be more advantageous than avoiding it. “The standard teaching about shunning the passive should be abandoned entirely. … Intelligent discussion of how non-canonical clauses fit into discourses just might have beneficial effects on the work of novice writers…” (Pullum 22). Pullum reinforces the alternative deliberate approach to teaching what situations are appropriate for the passive voice.
Ultimately, the passive voice, like the active, can be used in deceptive ways. Nonetheless, it is useful in its respective settings and can significantly enhance the quality of a writing. It would be more beneficial to teach the proper usage of the passive voice and empower writers to choose which voice they believe works best in any situation.
Works Cited
AlexLMX. “Human Stomach With Boxing Glove,” Unsplash, Unsplash, 5 December 2018, unsplash.com, Accessed 06 December 2021.
Brooke, Collin. “The Passive Voice Should be Avoided.” Bad Ideas About Writing, edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, Digital Publishing Institute, 2017, textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf. pp. 139-43 Accessed 09 Nov. 2021.
Cytonn Photography. “Two People Shaking Hands,” Unsplash, Cytonn Photography, 23 March 2019, unsplash.com, Accessed 06 December 2021.
Pullum, Geoffrey. “Fear and Loathing of the English Passive.” Science Direct, Science Direct, 22 January 2014, sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271530913000980. Accessed 09 Nov. 2021.
SinARTCreative. “Myths Word on Card Index Paper,” Unsplash, Unsplash, 26 April 2018, unsplash.com, Accessed 06 December 2021.
Soriano, Gustavo. “Deception,” Unsplash, Unsplash, 24 May 2020, unsplash.com, Accessed 06 December 2021.
Growth Mindset and Its Benefits to Students
As of 2021 there are many changes in this country, but many problems still occur. Such as discrimination, not just towards grown adults but to students too. Pattanayak begins to shine light on the problem by writing the essay “There is One Correct Way of Writing and Speaking”. Her bad idea about writing was that America makes foreigners believe that English must be perfected and if not, the person will be treated less then. At the end of this essay, she lists some sources that have more insight on this matter. The source that will be used is “Growth Mindset: How to Normalize Mistake Making and Struggle in Class” by Katrina Schwartz. This article explains how “productive failure” can help children with their process. This is a better idea since it helps kids better learn and understand that failing does not mean that student is bad. As this idea has been tested on several students it has had an impact on students mindset. Since it teaches them to try different methods when they are stuck.
What exactly is the problem? Well as Pattanayak has mentioned this is a problem with the education system. It is designed for middle class white students and not for foreigners that would also want to expand their education. But this mentality has changed as teachers have been finding new methods to better educate children. Schwartz has mentioned that some Stanford psychologists have found that when children know that they can craft their brain to work better, they have a better time understanding new matrerial. The method productive failure (created by,Dr. Manu Kapur) helps give hope and chance to improve their mistakes. When people are stuck, many people would just like to give up. By teaching children that being stuck does not mean failure it gives encouragement of doing better. After some time people begin to realize continuing after failure gives good effect, well teaching young children this will also be a life skill. Pattanayak says in her essay that minority student has trouble communicating and that can effect opportunities such as jobs. As this makes students feel un-needed, many give up and lose their student visa. Therefore Schwartz method would help with the struggling, but instead of getting kicked out of the whole class there could be extra time given. Extra help could be provided in a way the student could cooperate with, instead of just studying.
Growth mindset can help students grow in many ways as they learn their potential in learning. Schwartz mentions Infei Chen as she has found that new research that “Intelligence is Not Fixed” and when students learn this they are more likely to succeed. Pattnayak would agree that letting students fail will end up giving students better mental stability. Pattanayak says, “This understanding of writing is rooted called current traditional rhetoric, which focuses on a prescriptive and formulaic way of teaching writing that assumes there is only one way to write (or speak) something for it to be correct.” (Pattanayak, pg.82) This quote can be used to back up Schwartz method of learning as she believes that being perfect is not a reality.
Pattnayak would agree that letting students fail will end up giving students better mental stability. Pattanayak says, “This understanding of writing is rooted called current traditional rhetoric, which focuses on a prescriptive and formulaic way of teaching writing that assumes there is only one way to write (or speak) something for it to be correct.” (Pattanayak, pg.82) This quote can be used to back up Schwartz method of learning as she believes that being perfect is not a reality. The experiment that shows an example of this method. Which was orchestrated by Maricela Montoy-Wilson when teaching the students this new method she says “Everyone is going to feel stuck,” The students need to use different muscles of their brains to figure it out but it also makes them feel like they are putting in the work to get the answer. Pattanayak speaks more about how foreigners are taught to speak differently because the way the way they speak is wrong. But this new method of productive failure will give people a new perspective of what is write or wrong. Schwartz whole point of this new method is to show its not always about being correct but instead of a person trying because sometimes the reward is the amount of effort you put in.
Schwartz talks about how Maricela Montoy-Wilson asks her students to ask for specific types of help. This will help students start asking questions in class, but to also not be shy about not knowing the answer. Which is what pattanayak insinuates that this is a good idea as this gives students the benefit of doubt to be wrong instead of the student fearing being wrong. Pattanayak would agree with this since the foreign students were always taught to be perfect by using this method at a young age does not make a student be afraid to fail sometimes. This can encourage doing better and more improvement. If this is not done the students will be to scared and will start cheating just to be perfect. Learning this method young can make the mind more expanded, Pattanayak and Shwartz both have this understanding that children can be taught by their failures.
Citations
Schwartz, Katrina. “Growth Mindset: How to Normalize Mistake Making and Struggle in Class” KQED, 24 Aug. 2015.
Pattanayak, A. (2017). THERE IS ONE CORRECT WAY OF WRITING AND SPEAKING. In C. E. Ball & D. M. Loewe (Eds.), Bad Ideas About Writing (pp. 82–98). essay, West Virginia University Libraries Digital Publishing Institute
Chen, Ingfei. “New Research: Students Benefit from Learning That Intelligence Is Not Fixed.” KQED, Ingfei Chen, 16 July 2014, https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/36603/new-research-students-benefit-from-learning-that-intelligence-is-not-fixed
“Give Work That Encourages Mistakes: See It in Action, Celebrate Mistakes.” Mindset Kit, https://www.mindsetkit.org/topics/celebrate-mistakes/give-work-encourages-mistakes-see-action
“Praising the Process: See It in Action, Praise the Process, Not the Person.” Mindset Kit, https://www.mindsetkit.org/topics/praise-process-not-person/praising-process-see-action
Bad idea:There is one correct way of writing
One of the most common myths about writing is that there is just one correct way to write and speak. According to Anjali Pattanayak, who states in the book Bad Ideas about Writing’s article “There is One Correct Way of Writing and Speaking” there is no such thing as a correct way of writing and speaking. Because thinking that there is only one correct way to write enforces inequality by leading you to believe that King English is the only correct way to write. Anjali Pattanayak stated a better way of thinking writing in “There is one correct way of writing and speaking”, and Lynn Z. Bloom stated a better way of thinking writing in the book “Freshman Composition is a Middle-Class Enterprise.” They provided better ideas such as writing for a specific purpose and audience, teaching writing as a cultural and social activity, and using various linguistic choices for minority groups to appeal to various audiences.
Decorative people image ,Unsplash
In Lynn Bloom’s article “Freshman Composition is a Middle-Class Enterprise” she claims that most American autobiographies reflect middle-class white virtue. These autobiographies are full of success stories in which students might believe that in order to be successful, the instruction and the advice of middle-class teachers must lead to the improvement of oneself, he considered it as a wrong reason (Bloom 668). American autobiographies tell us that if we follow the middle-class virtues or culture, we will end up being successful. This misinformation leads students with smaller dialects to think that how themselves or their families, and members in their community speak and act is bad ideas wrong by comparison. It sends the message that who they are and where they come from is somehow undermined. Pattnayak argues that, even though students from nonstandard dialects are gaining education, they are still facing barriers in terms of culture, language, and literacy. This barrier is because of how the middle-class teacher set the values of their culture (pattnayak 83). Teachers also punish lower-class students for not being more like the middle class.
Saying one correct form of writing is also troubling because it assumes linguistic differences are the result of an error (pattnayak 85). We can look at Ebonics, Ebonics typically diverge from standard American English when spoken to people with a lower level of education. It is not an unacceptable form of standard language, so it devalues their identities
Decorative Aaron Burden,unsplash
According to Anjali Pattanayak “There is One Correct Way of Writing and Speaking,” she claimed that idea there is one correct way writing is a bad idea and should be replaced by better ideas. A better idea would be adopting different linguistic choices to appeal to different audiences. The advantage of these better ideas will allow writers to carefully plan and adopt what you say to the level of understanding and background of the listeners. In Lynn Z. Bloom’s article “Freshman Composition is a Middle-Class Enterprise” points out that education doesn’t have to be a banking concept in which, the middle-class teacher reflects their white culture into students, she called it oppression on literacy (Bloom 669). The better idea she proposed is to transform that structure so that they can become more of themselves. So, if we create a teaching system that will treat writing more cultural and social activity it will be a better idea. Writing should be evaluated by the context they are talking or writing about because there are people who come from different backgrounds who don’t speak the king’s English. Writing main concerns should be conscious of critical thinking.
Stratade,Unsplash
In conclusion, several authors presented a better idea that could replace the misconception that there is only one correct way of writing and speaking. Bloom and Pattnayak stated that changing the structure of education in which minority groups can be themselves and adopting different linguistic choices could replace the bad belief which is there is only one way of writing. They stated that implementing these ideas will give students from different backgrounds a fair chance in the academic world.
Work cited
Pattanayak, Anjali “There is One Correct Way of Writing and Speaking” Bad Ideas about Writing’s Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, pp.82-87 https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf
Bloom, Lynn Z. “Freshman Composition is a Middle-Class Enterprise” National Council of Teachers of English pp.654-680
Reading and Writing Are Not Connected: A Bad Idea
Nowadays, reading and writing play an essential role in communication and educational success. People often believe the idea that reading and writing are not connected, but the question is if that opinion is correct or not? In the “Reading and Writing Are not connected” essay from “Bad Ideas About Writing” book, Ellen C. Carillo takes the time to address why this is a bad idea and what she believes is a more appropriate idea for students to gain in-depth and comprehensive literacy skills. She works to prove that the connection between reading and writing is inarguable by explaining how good the result of teaching writing and reading simultaneously, compared to the old problematic separation’ cause.
Books are infinity sources of humanity knowledge
It’s hard to realize that the way we read and write is not the same but they improve each other through this difference. That’s the reason why educators and instructors need appropriate strategies in teaching writing and reading. In Carillo’s chapter of “Bad Ideas About Writing”, she explicates her perspective about the importance of teaching writing and reading alongside each other in many ways. One of the most notable is when she emphasizes the idea that reading and writing are not two separate skills: “What is often neglected in these public debates about the best way to teach literacy at the college level is that reading and writing are connected practices and, as such, the best way to teach them is together. It is a bad idea to continue privileging writing at the expense of reading” (Carillo 38). Carillo further explains that: “… research has shown that students learn to read and write better when they are instructed in both simultaneously. This is reinforced when children practice both reading and writing the same words” (Carillo 38-39). This one more time affirms Carillo’s idea that reading and writing are connected through the learning process and they have a close relationship.
Although this problematic separation is eliminated, the journey to earn that achievement is not easy. It took educators and curricula developers decades to figure out that children can learn how to read and write alongside each other in their early school years. Students are usually taught to read articles, books or essays then write feedback about feeling or understanding content and theme of reading materials. In this way, students can be flexible in thinking and expressing ideas not only in academics but also in social situations. Carillo explains that:” When one writes, one is creating meaning by putting words and ideas together. When one reads, the same thing happening” (Carillo 40). What she’s identifying is the supports for the idea that writing and reading have a close relationship, they support each other when teaching them alongside together. Besides, both reading and writing sharpen students’ mental ability while putting words and ideas together which helps them become better thinkers. Especially in college-level classrooms, reading and writing should be taught alongside each other than any elsewhere. College students can be fully aware of genres or types of books then read them collectively. They connect their own life experiences with the content of the sources they read to create their unique outcome, which can be considered valuable material to be a good writer. Carillo states in her essay:” Few people might read the same novel but each takes something different from it. That personal transaction with the text has affected how each reader creates meaning.” (Carillo 40). In other words, reading helps students to have their perspective about something that makes them different from others and day by day widen their writing sources.
“Writer” by Nattakorn Maneerat. Unsplash
Along with Carillo, many scholars support the idea of teaching reading and writing simultaneously. Author of “Reading, Writing, and Learning in Classroom”, David Bloome states that “Reading is typically viewed as used for gaining information. One reads a book to gain information to do so” (Bloom 23). Indeed, reading is always the most effective way to collect information. There are so many sources that we can not count, and every source has its value to contribute to human knowledge’s “warehouse”. As a certain thing, a good writer is always one who read a lot of information before they sit down and start writing.
Michael Bunn an author of “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the composition classroom” uses his writing to look at the close relationship of reading and writing and how important they are to student’s success. He states in his article:” Teaching reading in terms of its connections to writing can motivate students to read and increase the likelihood that they find success in both activities. It can lead students to value reading as an integral aspect of learning to write. It can help students develop their understanding of writerly strategies and techniques. Most of us firmly believe that reading improves writing.” (Bunn 512) This is one of the conclusions Bunn has after finishing his survey about the connection between reading and writing. He explains that if students know what the purpose of their reading is about, they will be motivated and take the reading process effective as a joyful activity hence improving writing’s outcome. Most important, he asserts the value of teaching writing and reading alongside together, which can improve each other day by day.
In short, all three authors have come together to a common idea about the essence of teaching reading and writing at the same time. Nowadays, strong communication skills are a priority in many corporate recruitments, in this case, communication is identified by reading and writing skills. Therefore, students should practice both reading and writing regularly and simultaneously, to enhance communication skills as well as critical thinking.
Work Cited
Ellen C. Carillo. “Reading and Writing Are Not Connected.” | in Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe. Bad Ideas About Writing. West Virginia University Library, Digital publishing Institute, Morgan Town, WV.PDF. https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf
Bunn, M. (2013). Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the Composition Classroom. College Composition and Communication, 64(3), 496–516. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43490768
Bloome, D., & Theodorou, E. (1985). Reading, Writing, and Learning in the Classroom. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(3), 20–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1492584
Face to Face Courses Are Superior to Online Courses: Bad Idea
In their essay, “FACE-TO-FACE COURSES ARE SUPERIOR TO ONLINE COURSES” the authors Tiffany Bourelle and Andy Bourelle, and in her essay “Chasing The Elusive ‘Quality’ In Online Education “, Anya Kamenetez, focus on the idea that face to face courses are better than online courses. They also address the idea that online courses aren’t as challenging compared to face-to-face courses. They mention that this is a bad idea because online courses are actually adaptive, and their way of teaching is innovative. Instead of falling for this misconception, the Bourelle’s and Kamenetez say it’s better to think of online courses to be a modern and adaptive, because technology is continuing to evolve, and the pedagogy promotes collaboration and helps students take control of their learning.
In her essay, Kamenetez states,” A meta-analysis by the U.S. Department of Education in 2010 showed that students performed modestly better in courses with some online component.” (Kamenetez 11), this demonstrates how when face to face courses implement some type of online learning, students did better, which shows that online courses and online courses should be both implemented for better learning. Adaptive learning software such as Pearson’s Mylab, Scholastic’s Math 180, Dreambox Learning, Cerego, and Khan Academy are examples of online learning that instructors have implemented. They have innovated their way of teaching to help students retain information instead of throwing all the facts at once. In her article, Kamenetez states that “Students on average memorized the basic facts in just 11 hours, using Cerego. And of the more than 20,000 who signed up initially, 2,370 actually passed. That’s a 12 percent pass rate — compared to the 5 percent that’s typical for most MOOCs.” (Kamenetez 37) Which shows that using adaptive learning software can help students learn content faster.
Furthermore, Kamenetez states that, “The Columbia researchers, as well as other critics, argue that the reason students so often fail in these classes is because of the way the instruction is designed.” (Kamenetez 13) which shows that online instruction has to be designed in a way that makes students more interactive and collaborative. The Bourelle’s state,” While online education continues to grow at a rapid rate, the pedagogy within remains cutting-edge, comparable to f2f classes.”(T.Bourelle and A.Bourelle 5) and Kamenetez gives an example of this when she mentions that,” Cerego uses an artificial intelligence algorithm, based in part on the science of memory, to decide which item to show you next, and when to show you the same item again. The goal is that you memorize them in an optimal amount of time.” (Kamenetez 26), this proves how technology is getting more advanced and learning new material is becoming easier and takes less time.
In their essay, A. Bourelle and T. Bourelle point out that,” Instead of using f2f classes as the barometer to measure online writing instruction, the time has come for instructors, administrators, students, and others interested in the quality of education offered in our universities to start recognizing that both f2f and online writing classes can provide challenging, intellectually stimulating educational experiences for students.”(T.Bourelle and A.Bourelle 9), online courses can be just as difficult and demanding as face to face courses. Technology will continue to advance and so will online courses, but that doesn’t mean face to face courses will be gone. Online and face to face courses are both ways students can succeed.
Works Cited:
Bourelle, Tiffany and Bourelle, Andy. “Face-to-Face Courses are Superior to Online Courses,” in Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, 351-355. Web. https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf
Anya Kamenetz, “Chasing The Elusive ‘Quality’ In Online Education.” 27 June 2014
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/06/27/323329818/chasing-the-elusive-quality-in-online-education
A Better Idea: Good Writers are not born, They are learned.
Image
Often times, people think that they are bad writers because they believe that they can’t meet or exceed the standards for writing that most professional writers can. People who are considered genius writers are thought of as having God-given talent. However, most people don’t know that some professional writers learned to write the way that they do, instead of having writing talents that was given to them by god. Instead of thinking this way people should understand that in order to become a better writer they need to take the time to practice writing effectively.
In “Some People are Just Born Good Writers”, Jill Parrott discusses how many people believe that they are bad writers because they are not as talented as professional writers. This theory stems from “the so-called literary crisis” in the 19th century, proclaimed “that students entering American universities needed to become more familiar with their own language and coincided with a push to use our education system to build a uniquely American intellectual identity” (Parrott 71). After this claim was made, universities began including introductory writing classes into their programs, which led to the separation between good writers and bad writers. The people who were considered good writers (sometimes referred to as genius writers) were usually people “who were privileged to be of the right socioeconomic, national, or ethnic background” and were the same people who “wrote to the university’s standards” (Parrott 72).
This led to “good writers” being the “desirable students” and the “bad writers” being “less desirable students” because the bad writers didn’t write to the standards of the good writers (Parrott 72). And as the centuries went on, people started to believe that others (who created the writing standard) writing abilities were naturally gifted to them by god, 
but this was not true. However, Jill Parrott did not believe that this was the only reason for people thinking that they were bad writers, nor did Jeff Goins. Dr. Parrott supposed that bad writers continued to be brought about because many writers believe that they did not have the potential to become professional writers, since they often compared their writing to genius writers work, and they gave up easily, especially when the writing became challenging. Jeff Goins author of the blog, “The Difference Between Good Writers & Bad Writers”, agrees with Parrott’s idea of what a bad writer is. He feels that no one is born a bad writer, but someone is a bad writer if: they are overly confident in their work, doesn’t try to improve their writing capabilities, lets writing challenges stop them from improving their writing, and gives up because they fear that they might fail again. Although Dr. Parrott believes that people are bad writers because of the standards that society holds writers up to, and Goins believes that it is more of the persons fault as to why they are a bad writer, they find common ground when discussing ways to become a better writer.
Jill Parrott believes that the misconception that some writers are naturally good writers is harmful because it makes already “struggling writers” think that they don’t have the potential to be good writers and they frequently become ” frustrated because they cannot force their writing to look like what they expect art to be” (Parrott 71). This is what makes struggling writers give up and don’t try to improve their writing abilities. However, Goins believes that most writers are bad writers because “they’re afraid of putting in the work and failing” (Goins) .
During her essay, Dr. Parrott stated “Sometimes when I hear colleagues complain about student writing, my response is “But isn’t that why we’re here? Is it not our job to teach them?”” (Parrott 72). This is another reason that many students (and writers in general) tend to give up on writing because they feel pressured to write to the standards of their professors and peers who are deemed good writers. And when they don’t write at the level, or as good as their peers, they are criticized and readers complain about their writing.
Both, Dr. Parrott and Goins believe that people can improve their writing by learning to write effectively and changing their mindset about their writing, if they do these things it is not guaranteed that they will become a professional writer but they will have more potential in becoming a better writer. Dr. Parrott thinks that in order to become a better writer first writers need to “debunk the deeply held idea” that “only some lucky people are good writers”. This means that people need to understand that good writers are people that were once bad writers but improved by using effective writing methods. Goins thinks that people can become better writers if they keep writing when others don’t and “go the extra mile” when others won’t (Goins). He believes that you need to do your best to continue writing even when the writing gets tough. To add on, both Dr. Parrott and Jeff Goins feel that writers should write everyday and build habits that will help their writing increase improvement. Something like writing on Social Media will not help writers write their best but having ” Good writing instruction” will.
Jeff Goins and Jill Parrott both had their own opinions about what factors makes someone a bad writer, but they were able to find a mutual understanding when discussing what writers can do to become better writers. Dr. Parrott believed that society’s writing standards was the thing that impacted the myth of good writers having god-given writing abilities the most, while Goins believed that writers themselves were at fault for being bad writers. But, they both agree that writers can learn to write effectively and change their mindset about the way that they perceive their own writing.
Work Cited
- Parrott, Jill. “Some People are Just Born Good Writers”, Bad Ideas About Writing, Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, West Virginia University Libraries Digital Publishing Institute,2017, 71-75.
- Goins, Jeff. “The Difference Between Good Writers and Bad Writers”