MLA and the Beautiful Bartholomae
I am in the process of making a grand flow chart that I cannot wait to scan in! (It's gonna be monumental guys.) So, MLA.
I, too, have never been formally taught the complexities of this universal citing style. I transferred high schools my senior year and my entire AP Lit class was in awe of me. Not only did I not know how to use MLA format, I had never even heard of it. Maybe Ogden High just has MLA education going on, but I feel that I am not alone in never being formally taught this vital bit of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a class centered around teaching this? Ha, nevermind. That would be dreadful.
I am quite grateful for the proper explanations of this style in the class. Being a tutor helps me to improve my own writing immensly. This class...has transformed my English-oriented paradigm into 360 degree vision.
Although my senior year classes were all college level, I feel that the paper-writing rules for my assignments were pretty lax, and I am embarressed to say that I have never, actually, written a paper in MLA.
My God, please don't fire me.
I feel like most of my teachers are so much more concerned with the content. Overeager students would raise their hands and ask what the desired format was, and my professors almost always shot them down with a, "I don't care, just make sure it's long enough. And on time." I guess that could be a funny experience with MLA formatting...the teachers that I have had taught me to disregard MLA entirely. Blessing? I don't know.
The two-part post last week included my flow chart (yet to be released) as well as a response to Bartholomae's idea of discourse.
I actually found Bartholomae's idea thought-provoking. It was kind of the other side to Murray's theory. Murray was so new and fun to read that perhaps some fundamental concepts of writing were left out, such as the fact that we are going through the inner process of writing in order to then create a product that reflects our voice that we discovered in the process.
It took some perserverance to get through Bartholomae's dry and dull writing, but I most certainly agree with this. I was reminded of an art class I had a while back. We were talking about messages in art and how we could not summon up the artist to answer any of our questions. The lesson was that we had to say everything we wanted to say in the artwork itself, because we could not stand adjacent to the viewer and explain why we included certain colors, brush-strokes, or details. This is similar to writing, we create something that we cast out into the world to thrive on its own. The creator gives no more nourishment to the creation.
Writing is a process, yes, but smart writers adapt to peering beyond the process, and knowing the product is what will be evaluated as a representation of the writer. Because the majority of what we write is persuasive writing, it would be foolish to not even consider the audience. Even when we are writing a research paper of some sort, we are attempting to persuade our audience (the professor) into believing that we know what we are talking about. I suppose this is why there is creative writing, and then there is writing with intent beyond personal satisfaction.
I agree with much of Bartholomae's comments on discourse. However, sometimes I cannot tell what it is Bartholomae would like to accomplish or change with his observations. Does Bartholomae believe that the invention and discovery that discourse prevents is what writing should be? Or do we need to teach proper use of discourse? (Yes, I copied this last paragraph from my Bartholomae response. Forgive meeeeee.)
I, too, have never been formally taught the complexities of this universal citing style. I transferred high schools my senior year and my entire AP Lit class was in awe of me. Not only did I not know how to use MLA format, I had never even heard of it. Maybe Ogden High just has MLA education going on, but I feel that I am not alone in never being formally taught this vital bit of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a class centered around teaching this? Ha, nevermind. That would be dreadful.
I am quite grateful for the proper explanations of this style in the class. Being a tutor helps me to improve my own writing immensly. This class...has transformed my English-oriented paradigm into 360 degree vision.
Although my senior year classes were all college level, I feel that the paper-writing rules for my assignments were pretty lax, and I am embarressed to say that I have never, actually, written a paper in MLA.
My God, please don't fire me.
I feel like most of my teachers are so much more concerned with the content. Overeager students would raise their hands and ask what the desired format was, and my professors almost always shot them down with a, "I don't care, just make sure it's long enough. And on time." I guess that could be a funny experience with MLA formatting...the teachers that I have had taught me to disregard MLA entirely. Blessing? I don't know.
The two-part post last week included my flow chart (yet to be released) as well as a response to Bartholomae's idea of discourse.
I actually found Bartholomae's idea thought-provoking. It was kind of the other side to Murray's theory. Murray was so new and fun to read that perhaps some fundamental concepts of writing were left out, such as the fact that we are going through the inner process of writing in order to then create a product that reflects our voice that we discovered in the process.
It took some perserverance to get through Bartholomae's dry and dull writing, but I most certainly agree with this. I was reminded of an art class I had a while back. We were talking about messages in art and how we could not summon up the artist to answer any of our questions. The lesson was that we had to say everything we wanted to say in the artwork itself, because we could not stand adjacent to the viewer and explain why we included certain colors, brush-strokes, or details. This is similar to writing, we create something that we cast out into the world to thrive on its own. The creator gives no more nourishment to the creation.
Writing is a process, yes, but smart writers adapt to peering beyond the process, and knowing the product is what will be evaluated as a representation of the writer. Because the majority of what we write is persuasive writing, it would be foolish to not even consider the audience. Even when we are writing a research paper of some sort, we are attempting to persuade our audience (the professor) into believing that we know what we are talking about. I suppose this is why there is creative writing, and then there is writing with intent beyond personal satisfaction.
I agree with much of Bartholomae's comments on discourse. However, sometimes I cannot tell what it is Bartholomae would like to accomplish or change with his observations. Does Bartholomae believe that the invention and discovery that discourse prevents is what writing should be? Or do we need to teach proper use of discourse? (Yes, I copied this last paragraph from my Bartholomae response. Forgive meeeeee.)
posted by Anonymous at 2:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home