Project #3: Annotated Bibliography

Your First and Last Name

25 November 2019

EN 102 / Gaffey

Project #3: Annotated Bibliography

Introduction

            While reading “Information Illiteracy and Mass Market Writing Assessments,” I was drawn to Les Perelman’s discussion about standardized essay exams and how they essentially ask students to regurgitate information.  I was particularly struck by the story about Perelman’s student who could not remember his American history, so he knowingly made up information about the Great Depression in order to complete his SAT essay (129).  This student’s decision to make up information stems from the fact that his opportunity to craft an argument was limited by the brief textual excerpts that were provided by the creators of the SAT.  He was not permitted to write about a topic of his choosing, nor was he able to research and locate his own sources on a topic in which he was already invested.  I began wondering if this student’s writing issue could worsen in his college composition classes: What if he is always given short excerpts of instructor-chosen information to construct essays?  Will he always feel the need to make up information to fill in the gaps?  Will he ever care enough about the topic to not knowingly include misinformation?  Given these questions, I began wondering what college instructors are doing in the classroom to promote original thinking, rather than asking students just to spit back information in an essay blue book.  Thus, to complete my end-of-the-semester project, I chose to research sources that respond to the general question, “What can instructors do to encourage original ideas in composition essays?” 

Annotated Bibliography

Geisler, Cheryl and Ann M. Penrose. “Reading and Writing without Authority.” College

            Composition and Communication, vol. 45, no. 4, 1994, pp. 505-520.

In 1994, Cheryl Geisler and Ann M. Penrose published “Reading and Writing without Authority” in the journal of College Composition and Communication, a peer-reviewed publication of the National Council of Teachers of English, which means that the primary intended audience for this article is comprised of college-level writing instructors.  The purpose of this article is to determine how a student’s level of authority impacts how they read and write about a topic (507).  The authors are credible speakers on this topic: Penrose teaches writing and research as an associate professor of English at North Carolina State University.  Geisler is also an associate professor who teaches writing and rhetoric at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where she directs the Writing Intensive Program (505).  The occasion that prompted Penrose and Geisler to conduct their study was most likely their observations as college instructors, where they saw a drastic difference in the way first-year and graduate students approach reading and writing.

In “Reading and Writing without Authority,” Penrose and Geisler discuss how many writing teachers try to encourage a sense of authority over the subject that their student is writing about. This, they believe, gives the student more confidence in their writing and in how they present the material to the reader (516). In a study they conducted, they investigated how differences in authority through two students (one a graduate student and the other a first-semester college student) affected how they wrote their paper on paternalism (507). Penrose and Geisler discover that the novice writer approaches reading and writing with an “information transfer model” where she reports information (507), whereas the more experienced writer is comfortable intervening in published arguments and creating his own ideas.  This more experienced writer also gravitates toward disagreements between texts, while the novice writer ignores such disagreements (511-512).  Overall, Penrose and Geisler argue for more of a role in rhetorical knowledge in developing authority. They suggest that, if students had a better sense of the rhetorical situation surrounding texts and the arguments in these texts, then students would see themselves as participants in their writing and discussions of the subject, rather than mere observers when looking over the information (517).

Penrose and Geisler’s article directly responds to my research question because they explore how teaching students to understand the rhetorical context of arguments will help students develop their own original ideas.  However, I am skeptical of their solution.  Isn’t it possible that students could understand the rhetorical context of a number of texts about a similar topic but still not be able to come up with their own angle or approach to the topic?  While I think Penrose and Geisler offer a good first step toward helping students think about the context of texts, I am not convinced that this will automatically lead to original arguments. 

Kantz, Margaret. “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively.” College English, vol.

            52, no. 1, 1990, pp. 74-91.

In 1990, Margaret Kantz published “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively” in the journal of College English, another peer-reviewed journal published by the National Council of teachers of English, which means that her intended audience is comprised of college-level English instructors.  (Here I would then describe the speaker/author, the occasion that prompted her to write this article, and the purpose of the article.)

In “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively,” Kantz outlines a common problem that many new college students face: writing a research paper without an original argument.  She ultimately suggests that the main difficulty in developing original ideas is in the act of synthesis, where students select information from sources and create an original thought from it (77).  However, she notes that students also misunderstand the sources they read as stories and expect these sources to all be true; this is because students do not understand that the “facts” that they read in articles are actually part of the author’s claims (77-78).  To offer a solution this problem, Kantz recommends that instructors teach students how to read sources as arguments and think of the rhetorical contexts of the texts (78). She further argues that instructors should organize research papers in a series of smaller assignments so students can build from their summaries of ideas and earlier drafts to allow time for their original ideas on the topic to develop (86).  Kantz concludes her essay by suggesting that if students are given the instruction and time to think about the rhetorical contexts of arguments, then original ideas and creativity will be formed within their papers (87).          

Kantz’s article directly responds to my research question since she presents several concrete ways that instructors can guide students toward developing original ideas.  Her suggestion to use a rhetorical triangle (the Encoder, Decoder, and Reality) was a little confusing to understand, but I still appreciated that she offered a model to help students think about the relationship between the writer, the audience, and the ideas.  This article prompted me to think of additional questions, however: would it be better if composition classes allowed students to choose a topic in the first week of class and then allow them to investigate the topic throughout the semester in a series of related assignments?  Or, should this type of research project be only one of several projects the students complete during the semester?

Murray, Donald. “The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Classroom.” College English,

            vol. 41, no. 1, 1979, pp.13-18.

Donald Murray published “The Listening Eye: Rflections on the Writing Classroom” in College English in 1979.  College English is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal printed by the National Council of Teachers of English, and the audience is comprised of college English instructors.  (Here I would then describe the speaker/author, the occasion that prompted him to write this article, and the purpose of the article.)

Murray’s “The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference” is a narrative essay that reflects on how he has taught his writing classes. Murray explains that he feels like he does not teach much, but his students continue to learn more. His students learn more because he allows his students to teach themselves when it comes to drafting and writing (14). In addition, he has learned over the years what kind of comments on papers work best with the students. For example, Murray used to mark up the papers thoroughly, but then began to ask questions on why the student wrote that way or to expand their thought (14). These questions help the student develop their writing further and allow them to have more of choice in their writing, as opposed to comments that dictate what they change. Murray also follows this process in his student conferences because he can talk to the student face to face and have them answer questions about their subject (17).

Murray’s article also directly responds to my research question, though his essay offers an even more concrete solution than Kantz provided in “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively.” Murray’s emphasis on asking students questions during writing conferences and on drafts, rather than telling students what do to in their papers, goes against how many instructors teach students to write.  However, it is likely that students will develop their own ideas by responding to their teacher’s questions, rather than only doing exactly what the instructor tells them to do.  Thus, Murray’s article speaks to my research questions, as it offers a practical solution to help students develop original ideas in their essays.