---

Joanna Hodges’s Reading Journal: June 2, 2008

Russell’s article, "Activity Theory and Its Implications for Writing Instruction," highlights the problems surrounding the basic concepts/goals of introductory college composition classes or “general writing skills instruction” (GWSI). Personally, I had never heard this term before, but it does seem to match the assumed goal of a course designed to improve students’ writing abilities. Russell makes the claim that the course, as it focuses on writing as a general rather than specific activity is, as Kitzhaber says, “over-ambitious” and lacks “intellectual rigor” (qtd. in Russell 2). Russell uses Kitzhaber’s points throughout the article to support his ideas about current composition classrooms and how they are not, as they claim, teaching students how to be, in general, better writers. I agree with this claim. I don't think that composition is a quick-fix for any writing deficiencies. It needs to be focused on specific genres or types of writing to make an impact. It's also good to look at a variety of writing genres in the course, I think, specifically ones that would benefit the students in their other courses in the learning community or in their majors.

Russell founds his ideas in activity theory, which he describes as a theory that “analyzes human behavior and consciousness in terms of activity systems: goal-directed, historically-situated, cooperative human interactions” (4). He relates this to GWSIs?, saying that they cannot be classified as a distinct activity system because of the ambiguity of the obect(ive)s and mediational means. There is not a strictly set structure for these classes, as they vary too much by different professors. There are so many different genres of writing, yet the GWSIs? claim to teach or improve writing, giving no specific form of writing to focus on. This causes the problem, according to Russell. He explains this idea well with his ball analogy: knowing how to play one type of game with a ball does not mean one would be able to play another type of ball game well (a good tennis player won’t necessarily be a good basketball player). Russell compares this to writing; there are many types of ways to use writing, in different genres or for different purposes. Excelling in one form of writing does not guarantee one will excel in any form of writing. This concept makes sense to me, as I encountered a variety of genres and writing purposes in my academic past. History was my minor, so I had to write a fair amount of history papers, and I could always feel myself writing differently for those than for my English papers. One genre was not better than the other; they were just different because the purpose was changed. At first I struggled with this shifting from one genre to another, but as I had to do it more and more, it became easier, just like Russell’s analogy to driving. After awhile, it just becomes natural.

Russell also explains the myth about a universal educational discourse (UED, as he abbreviates), or the idea that writing can be generalized and improved upon in a generalized fashion. With the different fields that have their individual specifications for “good” writing, though, this is quite a difficult task. There is no one discourse that is common among all educational fields in a university, so teaching the students to write for one would not really be beneficial. To me, this is closely tied to his idea about the ball analogy. Of course, if there are many ways to play with a ball, there would not be a universal ball-playing discourse; similarly, if there are many genres and fields for writing, there is not a universal way to write. So, this argument seems pretty logical to me. Since this article came out in 1995, I am thinking that maybe since then we have realized this a bit more (maybe with the help of Russell and the like) and have taken note of this. I see a little evidence in our composition courses that we are more aware of the situation and are attempting to do something about it. For example, the science and tech-related first-year communities tend to make the students write more in the style of science writing. So, I think the idea of trying to create more writing across the curriculums is great; it only further develops the students for the specific types of writings they will need to do as their educations progress. The main part that did not sit so well with me about Russell’s article was his idea of making the introductory composition course to teach about writing, not how to write. I think that teaching the students how to write for a more specific type can work well and I do not really see the need for the class about writing. Yes, it would raise the students’ awareness about the history and function of writing in different fields, etc., but I just think sticking to the typical composition class but incorporating WAC will make the difference. If the problem is about too much generalization about writing, this seems to be a good way to improve the situation.

I've learned about discourse communities before, in Dr. Talley's Lit Crit. class, and I remember doing some activity about different discourse communities and building connections with others through our similar communities. The discussion from that class helped clarify what discourse communities entail. The Wikipedia section on discourse communities can be linked to Russell’s article in that the difficulty with the composition classes Russell discusses seems to be about some of the boundaries and concepts set by the discourse community of the classes. Currently (or in 1995, at least), the discourse community was set up too broadly, made too many generalizations about writing, and was fooling itself into thinking it was its own activity system. Russell wants an overhaul for the entire discourse community, to alter its entire discourse, basically, as a discourse community should have “a broadly agreed set of common public goals,” according to Wikipedia. Russell wants to change these goals for the GWSIs?, from trying to teach writing in general, to have more WAC and teach about writing in an introductory course. I wonder how his proposal was received by the members of the discourse community. Was it liked? Disliked? Wikipedia does a good job of outlining the facets of what constitutes a discourse community and says that ”one cannot simply produce any text — it must fit the standards of the discourse community to which it is appealing.” Does Russell fit the standards of his discourse community? Does he try to? ----

---

Garrett Wieland's Reading Journal: June 2

Good response Joanna, and I think you’re right about the ball metaphor. Reading that “there is no autonomous, generalizable skill called ball-using or ball-handling that can be learned and then applied to all ball games,” on pg 8, really threw into relief my perceptions of composition as a whole, and caused me to think about it in a way I hadn’t before. One of the things I found interesting about Russell’s article was his abundance of “writing as a tool” metaphors. I saw a lot of reflection of the service-learning scholarship I read for Dr. Kirklighter’s class in his assertion that “For those tools that are in the form of texts, meanings almost always arise in relation to previous texts (intertextually) as well as in relation to non-textual phenomena. Every word, as Bakhtin put it, carries with it its history (1986).” When he writes, or Bakhtin writes, that every word carries with it its history, I saw what Nora Bacon would call a fundamental concern of service-learning: that every discipline carries its own set of specialized knowledge and language. Thinking about this, in light of the ball metaphor, how could a so-called GWSI class be effective? No matter what the case, a student will be employed at a job that is deeply entrenched in its own writing style and needs. This was the problem with service-learning that Bacon saw: how can students write effectively for community organizations when neither they nor the instructors have a solid grasp on that specialized “jargon”?

Russell seems to believe that WAC courses, with a trained professional from that respective field aiding in the grading process, would help the students. We discussed this last semester, but I wasn’t so sure of its effectiveness then. Maybe I don’t fully grasp the concept, but does Russell intend for each individual student to have a specialized grading system, with a respective professional? I’m not trying to be stubborn, but this couldn’t be done in a general writing class, which is I guess why he decides to do away with it. This could in theory work if the class was focused on one discipline, with one professional helping the professor, but if “courses [are] shallow since the genres are taught under severe time constraints and by faculty largely unacquainted with the activity systems for which the genres exist,” would any of this change with more focus? Once again, as with service-learning, you get into the logistics of trying to orchestrate a class with and around another, most likely busy, professional. It might take more effort, but might be worth that effort. That being said, I do agree with his assertion that “It is difficult enough to train graduate students in the discourse (and pedagogy) of one activity system (literary criticism, in this case); it is simply impossible to train them in the discourses of all activity systems.”

Another thing I caught that reminded me of Dr. Kirklighter’s class, or more explicitly, Dr. Mermann’s speech in class, was Russell’s discussion of the “written assessment model,” where the genres that a student is to study and learn how to write in are “announced from the beginning.” This model, which seems to be used both in secondary and higher education, sounds similar to the German method of schooling described by Dr. Mermann: you choose one tract from a young age, and follow it all the way through. Though this may make some better writers in the long run, what about the good old-fashioned change of heart? If a student decides to leave that discipline, what now? I know we’ve all changed majors. I can’t imagine being stuck in one, and being stunted by learning to write in a discipline that I no longer want to pursue.

Which gets back to the question of not having a general writing course at all. When and where, then, would students get this jumping-off point? If we do away with that course (apart from all of us being out of a job) wouldn’t that necessarily take away some valuable “figuring out” time for the student? Maybe that’s not the aim of the course anyways. Is Russell’s GWSI model anything like our composition courses? How is it different, if at all?

__________________________

Jennifer Marciniak ~ Reading Journal 1 ~ 6/2/08

I have to agree with Russell’s activity theory perspective that “there is no autonomous, generalizable skill or set of skills called "writing" which can be learned and then applied to all genres/activities.” (11) We have talked in our past classes about the need to understand where students are coming from socially, physically and mentally in order to better understand their learning abilities and jinxes. While interviewing Henry Giroux in the spring for our final interview paper, I asked him how can a TA who has never taught before be a successful diplomat of critical pedagogy? He replied:

"You have to know who the students are. That gives you something to build on. Never presuppose they know something. Teach about race, gender studies, etc. What is specific? How does it translate or transmit? Give them opportunity to participate in class. Learning is not passive. As a teacher you have to be politically engaged to know you can do and can’t do. More educationally than politically."

This does not only figure into ideas and discourse, but this also, as Russell points out, falls right into the lap of writing. I thought his analogies were colorful and helped drive the point home that someone who can write a fabulous 25-page research paper on the history of the word “pajamas” but will fail deplorably at his/her attempt to analyze the concept of HTML coding in banking websites. Motivation is such a key factor. And that is something that I am guessing will be a huge point of contention as a TA in the fall. How do we work with the students who just don’t seem to care without failing the ones who do?

On the subject of discourse communities, I think they are a great idea, but if they are kept too broad, writers can easily get off on tangents, angering others who want to keep the discussion within certain borders, and eventually blowing it all to bits or having the community go its separate ways. Just like inside the writing classroom, these communities need a facilitator/moderator, not a teacher, necessarily, to help guide them, keep them on course and keep the discussion flowing as one discussion, as one mighty and forceful river of thought and analysis, not branching off into dead-end and stagnant slew of off-topic rants and little trickles of undeveloped ideas that will eventually seep away into the cracks, forgotten.

_________

Liza Trevino’s Reading Journal – June 2, 2008

Composition helps students become comfortable with writing before they are required to write for a particular genre. Wouldn’t it be better to have a knowledgeable writer – one who is not afraid to take risks, who knows how to elaborate and work around a thesis? In addition, these students who are learning the new genres may not be introduced to all the jargon, thoughts, and necessary information to write an informed paper. Are they supposed to wait to receive any writing experience until later in their academic careers when they have all the appropriate tools? This is where the discourse community would come into play – at least according to Patricia Bizzell’s rules. First comes an understanding then comes the text. What do the students write while they gather that knowledge?

Do our first-year composition classrooms even require literary analysis? Russell talks about these as “the dominant activity systems of English departments” but I have always been under the impression that the writing in these classes is geared more towards real-world experiences and/or research and does not involve the reading of literature (17). Whatever types of writing our program is asking students to submit, they are required to engage in critical thinking. That in itself is an invaluable tool that can be used in any discipline. Russell does acknowledge that some classrooms engage in letter-writing but he maintains that since the “writing” and “activity systems” are still separate, the learning is incomplete.

With all of Russell’s talk about the English department, I had to wonder if any other department would even want to teach writing. What knowledge would a “universally qualified” instructor need to possess? It seems that Russell wants to create an academic utopia where each discipline provides instructors who can teach the writing and the content. Would this “specific, conscious coaching, mentoring, or formal instruction” do more harm than good (26)? The student would not be a well-rounded writer, but would only be suited to write for THAT one genre. Is that not going back to square one?

I am going to use an analogy (in Russell tradition) – when we teach a baby to walk, should we give it high heels to try to learn and then when it has mastered those, should we give it some thigh-high boots so it can master those, and then we move on to some sneakers, etc. No. We let the baby learn to walk – to learn the fundamentals of walking and to become comfortable with walking before we incorporate fancy shoes. There is nothing wrong with allowing first-year writing to take a similar course.

First-year writing students are most likely not going to be that interested in a particular jargon or genre. Most are just trying to adapt and find their place in the university. One thing I have come to find is that not all students take their composition classes as soon as they enter college. They are avoiding the dread of having to participate in writing so they prolong the inevitable. If this is the case for many students, it is no wonder that the writing in their content courses is suffering. You perform what you practice.

---

Chelsie

I think that I read the wikipedia explanation of “discourse communities” last year when I was trying to straighten it all out to help my students discern their own. It’s even funnier that I recently got my best friend (who is not in the English Master’s Program) to begin using the term. It’s a helpful terminology to identify different activities that people participate in.

Russell introduces these “discourse communities” as “activity systems,” which I think is another great term for differentiating between different systems of people.

I found his ball analogy extremely useful. It’s totally true. I’m pretty great at softball, but sprain my ankles playing basketball. Similarly, I think I’m pretty great at literary criticism by now, but I couldn’t even begin to write a biology paper (nor would I want to, but that isn’t the point). I was thinking about how the Science Triads might have this “problem” tackled. They know that they are working with students that will need to know how to create certain scientific documents. Their instructors teach them how to write those, and then their job is completed. On the other hand, the non-discipline triads are what Russell is called the General Writing Skills Introduction course or GWSI have students that are majoring in disciplines anywhere from graphic design to engineering. These are two disciplines whose genres of writing differ greatly, so as Russell reminds us, we should be concerned what type of writing we teach to these students.

I like the idea of introducing many different types of writing, but then there wouldn’t be practice for the students to become fluent in that specific genre language. So how do we teach it here, or how should we teach it?

I didn’t learn how to write a memo until I was a Junior and didn’t learn how to write an experimental paper until I started grad school, but does it matter? I didn’t need the skill until then. I think that the instructors realized that their courses were our first experiences with these particular genres so they provided a small amount of class time, or created a handout, to help us write in these ways. I guess what Russell is saying is why aren’t students learning these things in their general writing classes?

“Who is your audience? Try and figure out who you are talking to.” These are things that I remember from Composition. I know that a lot of Composition instructors at TAMUCC allow their students to choose the genre they wish to argue in. Therefore the students are sort of teaching themselves, but is that enough?

Also, if the science students are only learning how to write in their specific genres are they getting enough? A full liberal education?

Russell’s idea is cool, to implement a history of writing course and teach students all of the different genres of writing, or as many as possible. Can we teach our students the genres that we think will be most closely relevant to their lives? Then they will learn their third and fourth languages (genres) as their lives go on.

In regard to Russell's idea that other disciplines should also teach Composition... I know that this is how the Writing Program works at Duke University. Joseph Harris is in charge of the writing program and explains that having different disciplines teach writing has taught him so much more than he knew before. I'm sure that introducing different genres to students is one reason he hires multi-disciplined people, but also he does this to ensure that he has committed GTAs?. Not ones that are only there for the health benefits. Kind of cool.

---

Eva Marie’s Journal Response June 2, 2008

Wikipedia’s definition of discourse community functions as a general rule of who says what to whom and how it is understood. It is abundantly clear that we think and speak through our historical / cultural perspectives. Even though as a species we may share commonalities such as love, hate, and fear, we have different ways of dealing with and expressing these emotions. How then can we be rationally be expected to transmit these thoughts similarly through the activity theory? As Russell demonstrates, and outlines the activity of writing, we can see that even if the subjects object(ive) are similar, ie. Attaining knowledge, expertise, job security, mastery of a language or writing skills, reaching for the same goal will involve a myriad of different ‘tools’ at the disposal of the individual.

The individuality of the subject and the tools at their disposal can be as diverse as each unique persons potential to think is. This does not mean that the goal will be different it simply means that the individual will reach his or her goal in a different manner. As Russell states, within an activity system, a dialectical interaction will develop its own genre and people working within that system toward a similar goal will have their own specialized set of axioms that may not be appropriate to a different system. For example, I can not expect a computer engineer to wriote a manual using iambic pentameter. As Russell quotes Bakhtin, a text is “always some genre”- part of some activity system.

The question remains, is “composition” as a course a waste of time? According to Russell’s 1995 Activity Theory, it is out dated and the argument is for doing away with Freshman English. I will use the analogy that Liza made about teaching a child to walk in high heels then switching him or her to a different type of shoe. The point here is that the child will learn and adapt to the new skill. Learning new ways of knowing, walking or whatever is never easy. As we have read in various classes, we can be taught the skill of writing, and some will do better than others, but all, barring a learning disability, can learn to write at some level. With Russell’s model of an activity system, we can come to understand that the means and the individual will determine the direction taken in reaching a goal. We can more importantly recognize that we each com eequipped with our own unique 'tool' box to reach our goal.

Russell’s own summary of what he interprets as Kitzhaber’s points for the abolition of Freshman English are or were valid when he wrote the essay, but, I would like to argue the first point: that in my academy, at least, I have been made aware that the department of English works together to discern the direction of study that they are in agreement with. I would like to believe that most academies work together toward a common goal when it comes to the philosophy of that school’s pedagogy. It will not do as Russell show, that one institution is not in agreement even with itself about what is thought to be the best practice or policy based on current teaching pedagogy, for the students. I read in bell hooks book, and I strongly agree, that praxis and theory have to work jointly. One is not effective without the other. so I must state that schools that don't agree on theory will end up with a mixed bag of pedagogy that will serve to unbalance the learning community. For me, this is a policy problem and not a problem with the curriculum per se

Second, I disagree completely ( biased?) that English is not as rigorous as the sciences. Ask any math major to write a story or a poem and they will lock up as often as an English major will when asked to calculate the mass of a displaced object.

Third, teaching practices have come a long way from “eradicating habits and thoughts of the students. In fact it has been my experience that teachers at the university level, embrace those differences as long as through that activity theory the students do not stray wildly from their activity system.

Finally, in defense of Freshman English, that inability to find a relationship between the degree of improvement and the quantity of labor expended in teaching freshman English is not a reason to pronounce it ineffective. Some things remain unmeasurable just as it is impossible to know how many writers, poets, and thinkers would be lost if they were denied the opportunity to formulate their thoughts and write them down first in a crude initial attempt to learn, as in the case of the baby learning to walk, to write and to use language as their tool to transmit their ideas..

Wikipedia has the right idea. The term Discourse Community is very meaningful in that many communities exist. Each with their own unique way of working toward goals using their own tools to accomplish this. Why then is it any different for a writing community? Their individuality may put them in yet different writing genres but it is writing none the less.

---

Sean Britt's Journal 1 Entry

I am reminded here of some of the research I have read about technological literacy, in that it relates to the idea of discourse communities and variances in genres of writing ability. Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola's article "Blinded by the Letter" elaborates the common misconception that reading and writing are "generic [skills], the intellectual equivilant of all-purpose flour" (1999). By looking at literacy in terms of specific discourse communities, we not only do greater service to the preparedness of future participants in those communities, but we also promote more awareness of the different types of communities that exist and how they interact in our personal and professional lives. Wysocki and Eilola go on to highlight some of the new and changing forms of literacy and the discourse communities they represent; Giroux's border spaces and Anzaldua's Borderlands are two such examples.

With this in mind, I really understood why Russell sensed a need to make drastic changes in the fundamental philosophies of composition instruction. While I think the ball metaphor can be adjusted a little, it is certainly a relevant way to approach the situation. Let me elaborate: I think that there are some fundamental properties of a ball, or of writing, that can be understood and generalized; they only become meaningful when put into context, or into their specific discourse. This is not to say, however, that writing instruction cannot begin with generalized methods; I agree, though, that those generalizations are less relevant before they are put into context. I also feel, though, that once that contextualization has occured, it may serve to elucidate the differing ways that the general principles can be applied to different genres, as Russell calls them.

All in all, I think that by making transparent the ways in which writing principles apply to different discourse communities, we give the students the ability to better decide for themselves where and with which community they which to participate. In this way, they become more persoanlly active in their own educational choices and also begin to learn how their writing fits into the academic decisions they have made. Or, in terms of Garrett's argument for the "change of heart" students tend to have more and more these days (or at least they feel more empowered to do something about, perhaps), the type fo instruction that Russell suggests seems more congruent with understanding how to move between discourse communities with greater facility.

---

Sarah's Journal One

I think I've been hearing about stuff like this for awhile, but the way Russell puts it makes a lot of sense and makes me really agree with it.

I don't think people come to college (especially regional universities like this one) expecting or wanting a "full liberal education" anymore. People want to be more skilled/prepared/practiced in what they specifically want to do. I realize (as I was one of them) that freshmen change their majors, etc., but part of learning what you want to do is learning what you don't want to do. For science/math majors interested in writing, there are a variety of other writing classes they can take for pleasure. Sometimes I think we try to do too much in 1301 and 1302. One of my co-workers (who also teaches comp) always says that her job is to get them to sophomore year so that they can be successful in college. Period. And that comes more easily when the student has already been at least exposed to the genre (or discourse community) they will be expected to know for the next three years, or their entire career, and the method/means to achieve the objective.

I also like how Russell points out that activity theory erases ideas of good and bad writers. I'm going to make another math analogy. Many people are good at algebra or geometry but not both. Similarly, many people are good at technical or scientific writing but not creative writing or writing about literature. And once you learn the conventions of each genre, they become easier to operate in. All in all, this approach makes writing more feasible activity for everyone to participate in for their own purposes. It becomes less an elite thing with no use other than for liberal arts majors to go on and on about abstract ideas. Activity theory is a great way to make writing more accessible.