Final Thoughts

The argument is worth making

The premise of the paper - that a battle is raging - is clear from the outset, but one must read past the introduction to ascertain why this matters. At that point it becomes clear that the argument matters, as evidenced by the statement:  "As writing instructors attempt to demystify both the processes of composition and the complexities of the English language for their students, rigidity creates roadblocks in both comprehension and function" (2). Therefore for effective instruction, teachers need to plot a course in the battle, and the paper offers suggestions how. The conclusion affirms the relevance of the argument: "Despite the rigid sides taken in the Grammar Wars, grammar neither exists in isolation from the written form nor buried without purpose within it. Students should learn instead that power exists in the skilled manipulation of discourse that comes from both knowledge of grammar and the practice of it, and perhaps through their writing, a truce in the Grammar Wars will finally be achieved" (10).

The writer has (tried to) arrange the writing in line with purpose and audience

The paper’s audience is presumably educators, administrators or parents who have been affected by the contemporary public rhetoric surrounding grammar – the call by some to “return to the basics” vs. those who favor a less rigid approach. Therefore the arguments for either side need to be presented up front, explained through examples, and then debunked, affirmed or compromised. The paper suggests compromise. But first it presents the arguments: “Prescriptivists believe that certain usages are inherently correct and others inherently incorrect. And that to promote correct forms is to uphold truth, morality, excellence and a respect for the best of our civilization.”  According to this battle-mode perspective, Prescriptivists view the tolerance of incorrect forms as encouraging “relativism, vulgar populism, and the dumbing down of literate culture” (Pinker) Conversely, Descriptivists, Pinker writes, believe “that norms of correctness are arbitrary shibboleths of the ruling class, designed to keep the masses in their place” (1). Examples from both sides follow, and then the conclusion, which supports the compromise. All have external sources to supplement the paper’s arguments.

The style effectively supports the purpose, argument, and reading comprehension

The style of the paper is formal, but not exceedingly so. It allows some of the emotionality inherent in the debate to show through, and also connects it to the reader. For example, “In other words, the language that our society finds appropriate is based on agreed upon assumptions of what is acceptable and what is not, and we know the rules not necessarily because they are written down, but because “that’s how it’s done around here.” Most Milwaukeeans would feel rather silly saying “Y’all,” and most Southern Americans would have no idea at all what one was looking for if asked where the “bubbler” was” (2). The examples cited provide diverse voices as well, from the formality of Delpit’s “forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized sub-skills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors” (7) to the homespun approach of Mike Greiner, “fix the writing and the grammar will come along” (4), the voices are varied from formal to conversational, making the topic approachable from the varied views of the audience.

The argument and examples work together

There are arguments to support both sides of the cited debate, from Pinker’s definitions on the front pages to Skretta and Greiner’s opposing points of view. There are also sources that provide validation for the compromise model, from Rauch’s dual approaches to Ehrenworth and Vinton’s examples “thus we plan for, demonstrate, and coach the habits of [grammar] fluency” (8). Altogether these examples support the argument well.

All sources are cited appropriately, in MLA or APA format, in in-text and works cited references.

The citations are correct both within the text and in the works cited, and were checked for accuracy through two sources.

There is evidence of revision (which requires that the writer keep and then turn in all drafts with the final version).

There are eight drafts, and all the copies are saved for presentation if required. The paper substantially changed from the first draft to the last in both form and purpose.

Given the revision, the grammar and mechanics are appropriate for the audience and purpose. 


The mechanics are correct, and match the audience and purpose as stated through the examples above.

A criterion you can choose to use:

The writer took risks in the writing. (If you want this to be part of your own personal rubric, let me know what risk you want to take in your writing—such as trying a new style—in order that we can help you with it.)


The risk I took was starting essentially completely over when my perspective changed from absolute descriptivism to the compromise version.

Extra credit criterion: The writer uses "bubbler" appropriately in the paper.

Most Milwaukeeans would feel rather silly saying, "Y'all," and most Southern Americans would have no idea at all what one was looking for if asked where the "bubbler" was (2)

Reflections on Reflection

Properties that should exist:

• see change in the writer
• see change in opinion
• pure honesty - No conversion stories
• explains the process of change
• references the readings/the experience
• what I want to take from this
• see thinking in the writing/ re-evaluation

My reflection draft doesn't really explain much about how I have changed. I'm not sure how much I have "changed", I think it is more that I have learned tools to use, and will sort them out on the road ahead to match the challenges I face. There are some changes in opinion, again based on the learning experiences and applicability to future classroom use. I think I have been honest and direct, there is one bit of a conversion story in my approach to revisions, but it is more about changing my mind than changing myself. I think I explain the hows and whys of that change and other changes fairly well.

My entire reflection responds to the readings - too much, perhaps. I talk about what I read, what I liked or didn't like about it, and how I can or cannot use it in the future. The same thing is true for activities in class. Each step along the way was evaluated for its potential usefulness in teaching, with a few small tools to pack into my personal writing backpack.

I thought a lot about what we did and what I learned, and I think it shows in my analysis. It really helped to have to blogs to look at again.

As far as what is missing from the list....

I think part of a reflection could be whether or not you feel like the effort was worth it, and how you felt about the process.

Additional input from the class:

Where do we go from here?
What challenges were overcome?
What were the gaps - what was missing?
What further questions do I have?
What was unclear as we did it, but now makes sense?
How would I explain this class to others?
Connections to outside world and other areas of learning?
Meta-thinking?

Additional reflections:

I think my reflection focuses too much on the readings and not as much as it should with the meta-thinking and overview ways of analysis. I think I need to use fewer examples from the reading and more analysis of what was useful and why. I also think I could go into further analysis of where do I go from here.  I could talk about what I felt was missing, and also more about some of the class dynamics and how they affected the class.

The classroom dynamics were really significant, and need to be addressed in the reflection. "The not-obvious elements of the experience."

Video Drafting

Random thoughts.....

Thirty Second Message

Music
Voice-Over? (Authoritative - like a newscast)
Animation
Bright Colors
Text

Bullet Points vs Story?
Probably a story

Newsreel Documentary!
Black and White!
Oooooooo!

Grainy black and white video of soldiers fighting
Truce flag....

Do a storyboard.


The video formatting allows sound, which theoretically emotes a more emotional response. It allows animation or live-action movement, which makes it temporally relevant.  The video format is short and sweet, allowing a quick messaging that might make a point that sticks - a take-away sound bite.

Poster Pondering

Apparently this is a successful poster both visually and conceptually, so I think I will leave it alone except for a spacing tweak on the tag line. I would agree with the assessments as to its strengths, and now I will print it out on fancy paper and call this project done.

It was interesting to me that essentially the same message played well visually but not conceptually on this one, so I guess it will end up scrapped. Too bad. I thought it was pretty cool.

In terms of the rest of the posters and what I learned from them, I think it was helpful to see what people responded to.

The creative process for the poster was similar to writing in terms of starting from scratch in terms of deciding what was most important to convey, and then how to arrange it on the paper. I had a longer message that I edited down to say what needed to be said in a short, effective, visually appealing way.  I thought about my audience - which is how I ended up with the #2 pencils, as well as the terminology I used. I revised it a lot, just like writing drafts.

It was different from the writing process because I thought in pictures first. I started with the graphics - the idea of battling soldiers - and adapted my text to fit the concept. The revising process was far more about colors, fonts and layout than the content of the text - although I certainly wanted to convey my message. But to me the most important aspect was eye-catching visuals, so the process evolved from that perspective.

Writing Rubric - Status Update

The argument is worth making.
Since it has kept me up a lot of nights and is all over academic and popular writing, yes, I think the argument is worth making.
The writer has tried to arrange the writing in line with purpose and audience.
The latest draft accomplishes this much better than the first three, and somewhat better than the fourth.
The style effectively supports the proposal, argument and reading comprehension.
I changed the style to be a little more informal when I decided to include parents in my audience.
The argument and examples work together.
They do, and provide some ways the theories are being applied, and why.
All sources are cited appropriately.
I think so. MLA style.
There is evidence of revision. 
Yep. Five so far and there will be probably be a sixth.
Given the revision, grammar and mechanics are right.
I think so.

Additional Criterion:
Risk
The risk I took was in essentially junking what I thought was a good paper to go back to the invention stage and pretty much start over with a whole new point of view.

Extra Credit.
I had absolutely no intention to use "bubbler" in my work. It just happened, and there it is. Kismet.

Drafts From the Drawing Board

This is the second draft. 

This is the second version of the first draft.

This is the first version of the first draft (more or less).

Lessons from the Drawing Board....

I wanted my posters to "pop" with a succinct message that would intrigue a potential reader. For me, dramatic colors are important. Since my topic is writing, I wanted to use iconic images and colors - yellow for writing paper and classic pencils. Since my paper emphasizes the Grammar Wars, and resolution to them, I wanted a "military" (in a pacifist sort of way, of course) look to the graphics. I decided on toy soldiers.  On my first layout the text is both centered and off-center to try to gather interest. However on my second draft it was distracting - so the text is centered and the graphic is skewed. I used "pedagogy" on one and "teach" on the other, and at the moment I am leaning toward "teach" for the terminology. The text in the first poster has some passive voice, which I am not sure about, so in the second poster I took it out. I futzed a lot more with the first poster but I am happier with the second.

Revisionist

The availability of extensive time for the drafting process was literally a blessing and a curse. My paper went from one direction to an almost opposing one, and the process was painful. Historically (and a person my age has a lot of history, and thus papers, in her past) I have always done drafts and revisions but NEVER have I taken so much time at it. At some points in the process I just wanted to be done. It started out as a very reasonable paper - well-researched and (I say vainly) fairly well written.

But the need to look at it both repeatedly and from varying perspectives was like taking a gossip story out to a ladies' luncheon and letting them have at it. Opinions changed, new evidence was gathered, the argument as it had existed was ripped into threads with a plethora of new opinions and points of view to think about. It became a tattered remnant of what it once was, and needed not only triage but major resuscitation. And for quite a while it has been on life-support while I frantically searched for a cure.

New research, new ideas, pondering, inventing again, rewriting, ripping, rewriting - never before has a paper received so much time, love and hate before leaving my manipulating ways behind. The process was exhilarating and terrifying, often in the same moments.

But what I discovered was that my initial discomfort with the paper, rather forced upon me by peer and teacher feedback, initiated a deep thinking process that resulted in some real changes in perspective. Right in the middle of the revision process I was angrily forced to teach in a way I thought couldn't be worse, and when I called the instructor out on making me teach that way - I learned how wrong my premises were. I grew immensely as a writer, a potential teacher, and a special needs parent because of what I learned that day and throughout the process. I learned much more than what I ended up writing about.

I revised not only my paper but my way of thinking. It was a dreadful, painful process but it was full of ah-has. And like laughter, ah-has are good medicine for what ails both writer and written product. Now both are better.