Author Archives: Patricia Earl

In the article “Pedagogical Approaches to Student Racial Conflict in the Classroom,” Penny A. Pasque et al. explore “some of the ways faculty address student conflict mind and around racial diversity in the classroom” (1). Pasque et al. support their exploration with a survey of 66 faculty members of diverse backgrounds, with analyses of theContinue reading “Pasque, Penny A., et al. “Pedagogical Approaches to Student Racial Conflict in the Classroom.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 1, 2013, 1-16.”

In the article “Inventing the University,” David Bartholomae observes that students have to “invent the university . . . [and] learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and arguing that define the discourse of our community” (523). Bartholomae substantiates hisContinue reading “Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 523-553.”

In the article “Professing Multiculturalism: The Politics of Style in the Contact Zone,” Min-Zhan Lu explores “how to conceive and practice teaching methods which invite a multicultural approach to style, particularly those styles of student writing which appear to be ridden with ‘errors’” (467).  She shows her exploration and and method through anecdotal evidence ofContinue reading “Lu, Min-Zhan. “Professing Multiculturalism: The Politics of Style in the Contact Zone.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 467-483.”

In the article “‘Contact Zones’ and English Studies,” Patricia Bizzell proposes that in light of multiculturalism, “we need a radically new system to organize English studies . . . [and to] develop it in response to the materials with which we are now working” (460). Bizzell supports her proposal by referencing other pedagogical theories, especiallyContinue reading “Bizzell, Patricia. “‘Contact Zones’ and English Studies.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 459-466.”

In the article “Narrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive Reductionism,” Mike Rose reflects that cognitive theories and the claims surrounding them “lead to social distinctions that have important consequences, political as well as educational . . . [there are] problems with and limitations of this particular discourse about remediation” (326). Rose supportsContinue reading “Rose, Mike. “Narrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive Reductionism.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 325-365.”

In the article “Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer,” Andrea A. Lunsford asserts “most of our basic writing students are operating well below the formal-operations or true-concept formation stage of cognitive development, and hence they have great difficulty in ‘de-centering’ and performing tasks which require analysis and synthesis” (282). Lunsford substantiates her assertion by providingContinue reading “Lunsford, Andrea A. “Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 279-290.”

In the article, “Listening to Students: A Usability Evaluation of Instructor Commentary,” Brian Still and Amy Koerber argue that “although further application of usability-evaluation techniques to instructor commenting might be a fruitful new approach for increasing our understanding of the instructor– student relationship, there are important differences between the teacher– student relationship and the expert–noviceContinue reading “Still, Brian and Amy Koerber. “Listening to Students: A Usability Evaluation of Instructor Commentary.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 24, no. 2, 2010, 206-233.”

In the article, “On Not Being a Composition Slave,” Maxine Hairston argues that the “eror-focused method of teaching writing does not work, and for good psychological and behavioral reasons” (118). Hairston supports her argument through anecdotal evidence, as well as references to other research articles on composition. Her purpose is to show that error-focused gradingContinue reading “Hairston, Maxine. “On Not Being a Composition Slave.” Training the New Teacher of College Composition, edited by Charles W. Bridges, Toni A. Lopez, and Ronald F. Lunsford, National Council of Teachers of English, 1986, pp. 117-129.”

In the article, “Responding to Student Writing,” Nancy Sommers observes that “although commenting on student writing is the most widely used method for responding to student writing, it is the least understood” (148). Sommers supports her observation through a study of 35 teachers at NYU and UO and their comments on the first and secondContinue reading “Sommers, Nancy. “Responding to Student Writing.” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 33, No. 2, May 1982, pp. 148-156. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/357622.”

In the article, “The Phenomenology of Error,” Joseph M. Williams suggests that “the categories of error all seem like they should be yes-no, but the feelings associated with the categories seems much more complex” (155). Williams supports this suggestion through various anecdotes and observations of error, as well as by referencing the writings (and errors)Continue reading “Williams, Joseph M. “The Phenomenology of Error.” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 32, No. 2, May 1981, pp. 152-168. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/356689.”