Throughout this class, I have come to an increased understanding that there is a vigorous intellectual debate about how to teach writing, for example over whether or not freshman writing is effective, and how to prepare students for different disciplines. In the process, I have gained some efficiency in my writing and a clearer sense of how far I have to go. I see that I need to acquire greater language skills. I also see that I need to read in many disciplines, to figure out the expectations in each discipline.
I have learned that I must ask questions to avoid getting off track. Also, I have learned that getting help is not from weakness, but instead, will help me express my ideas understandably. Some (most, actually) of the texts for this course have been challenging, and I started very confused. However, seeing that I can understand them (even if it requires the professor’s outline) is reassuring.
It also gives me hope that I might someday understand academic texts in my other subjects. This course has encouraged and overwhelmed me by showing me how complicated writing is, but I look forward to mastering it more thoroughly because I know that success will depend on it a great deal, even in accounting.
As we read the texts, I was surprised by how strongly Crowley criticized writing classes. They recommended that, as an alternative, “composition specialists could begin to work toward installing writing instruction throughout the curriculum vertically as well as horizontally, toward establishing departments of writing in institutions where that is appropriate, toward strengthening writing centers, and toward offering writing courses outside of the academy” (Crowley 243).
I saw that Downs and Wardle had tried to solve some of these problems in their experiments (Downs and Wardle 559-563). However, even they are criticized by Miles, et al. for lacking “methodological sophistication and accountability” (Miles, Pennell and Owens 509). Miles et al. also criticize Downs and Wardle because the researchers describe the research process as, “often” messy, complicated, and inconclusive” (571), while their results are, instead, “neat, uncomplicated, and conclusive” (Miles, Pennell and Owens 509).
As a Chinese ESL student, I can find writing challenging and tedious. I often have to translate in my head when I am composing. My past literature reading is different from that of my classmates. Also, instruction is often different in China, and I have had to get used to a new way of teaching. Thus, I am starting from a different place than some of my classmates when it comes to writing. Sometimes, I compose in Chinese and translate into English, then try to make the English sound better. I read my work to others who speak English better and ask for their feedback to do this.
This course has taught me some things that might make academic writing a bit easier for me. About picking topics and developing a thesis, I began by wondering why I, as a student, would have anything to say about any topic. The class convinced me that I must try. I began by thinking that I should choose something just because it interests me, or I believe it. I learned that I should make sure that I could support a thesis before I commit to it.
I also learned that I needed to make sure that I found sources that I could understand, and that supported everything I was trying to say. I discovered this problem when I tried to find credible sources opposed to the idea that a vegan diet would save the planet.
I ended up changing my thesis and including the following statement to address this problem: “While there is disagreement as to whether human activity is responsible for the observed changes, the reasons for the climactic upheaval are not necessarily relevant to this essay” (Research paper).
I have learned that each discipline has different expectations, which is a bit scary. Although I have not yet had time to do this yet, I think I should compare articles from scholarly journals in different fields. I also found out that there is a constant discussion among researchers. This reminds me of a comments thread for scholars. Research articles are like thread postings, but of course, much longer. I saw this for myself while researching veganism.
I was so surprised by one source’s assertions about negative nutritional and land-use effects of eliminating meat (Capper) that I felt I needed to warn that, “the logical outcome of a complete conversion to veganism could have unintended consequences” (Research paper). It was intimidating but also somewhat reassuring to read Kantz’s description of a native English speaker experiencing trouble in figuring out how to evaluate sources. This is sometimes difficult for me as well (Kantz 76).
I am still very un-confident about my language skills. However, I benefit from reading other students’ work, getting readers’ feedback, and getting teacher feedback. I do not always understand it, and it can be intimidating to both give and receive comments. It sometimes reminds me of a bit of the group criticism that I have heard about under Mao.
However, the process was not as bad as I feared. As an example, I was dismayed when my peer reviewer found my position paper confusing (Peer review). However, I went back and tried to weed out anything unnecessary, and I hope that this helped.
This has all been a very challenging experience, but I am excited about trying to learn how to write for the discipline of accounting now. After this course, I want to do more writing. I also want to do more reading in other fields.
Works Cited
Crowley, Sharon. “A Modest Proposal.” Crowley, Sharon. Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998. 241-243. Print.
Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle. “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning ‘First Year Composition’ as ‘Introduction to Writing Studies.” College Composition and Communication (2007): 552–584. Print.
Kantz, Margaret. “Helping Students Use Textual Sources.” College English 52.1 (1990): 74-91. Print.
Miles, Libby, et al. “Commenting on Douglas Downs and Elizabeht Wardle’s ‘Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions’.” College Composition and Communication 59.3 (2008): 503-511. Web.