In the article, “The Study of Error,” David Bartholomae argues that we must “learn to treat the language of basic writing as language and assume . . . that the unconventional features in the writing are evidence of intention, and that they are, therefore, meaningful, then we can chart systematic choices, individual strategies, and characteristic processes of thought” (255). Bartholomae substantiates his argument by referencing other studies (mainly Mina Shaughnessy’s Error and Expectations),as well as showing his observations within the error analysis of the writings of a student named John. His purpose is to show that simply trying to “correct” the errors of a writer’s text and to drill them in grammar studies is futile in order to offer an alternative methodusing error analysis to see the specific errors that students make to more effectively help them. His argument is directed at teachers. As a student and a possible future teacher, I found Bartholomae’s ideas enlightening. He points out that we make assumptions that someone is incompetent or underdeveloped, even when they show a complex system of making meaning, and the differences and obstacles between the acts of speech and writing.

In the article, “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar,” Patrick Hartwell notes the debate among the those who believe that teaching grammar is essential to pedagogy, and those who believe teaching grammar is not an effective pedagogical strategy: “the grammar issue is itself embedded in larger models of the transmission of literacy, part of quite different assumptions about the teaching of composition” (208). Hartwell supports his notation by reviewing the “five meanings of grammar,” and the research of many of his peers. His purpose is to examine the grammar debate in a different way in order to present the findings in a way that he believes is more productive . His argument is directed at fellow teachers. As a student and possible future teacher, I found his argument a little veiled at first. To be fair, he did state his position on the subject from the first sentence; however, I felt as though he tried hard to be neutral, and failed in the attempt, but I did agree with his conclusions around the grammar issue.

In the article, “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories,” James A. Berlin argues that “writing teachers are perforce given a responsibility that far exceeds this merely instrumental task” (237). Berlin substantiates his claim through an analysis of four different categories of pedagogical theory. His purpose is to show the strengths and weaknesses of different pedagogical theories in order to show that the New Rhetoricians have the best approach to teaching composition. His argument is directed at teachers. As a student and a possible future teacher, I found his explanations and definitions extremely helpful and his conclusion a strong one.

In the article, “An Ontological Basis for a Modern Theory of Composing Process,” Frank J. D’Angelo suggests that “a modern theory of the composing process can be based directly on evolutionary theory as it relates to the origins and history of consciousness” (141). D’Angelo supports his claim by exploring, in depth, various psychologist’s arguments. His purpose is to show a connection between composition and the evolution of consciousness in order to show that rhetoric can be used to unify people. I believe his argument is aimed at his fellow theorists. As a student and possible future teacher, I found his conclusion clear, albeit a bit “Polly-Anna.” I also wish he would have explained more thoroughly how the psychology and ontology were connected with the composing process.

In the article,”The Basic Aims of Discourse,” James L. Kinneavy observes that “most of us make implicit assumptions about the aims of discourse when we loosely distinguish expository writing from literature or creative writing . . . But it may be that this simple distinction is too simple and that other aims of discourse ought to be given some consideration” (129). Kinneavy supports this observation by giving evidence from different literary theorists and how they have approached the aims of discourse, as well as corresponding charts to show the different systems of aims of discourse and the purposes of composition. His purpose is to show that the teaching of the aims of discourse is an important part of teaching composition in order to preserve liberal arts education with composition as a main component. His argument is aimed at fellow teachers. As a student and a possible future teacher, I found Kinneavy’s observations to be confusing. I wasn’t always sure what he meant. The conclusion is where I found the most clarity. 

In the article, “Post Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise,” Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch argues that “post-process scholarship is shortchanged by the continued emphasis on process in that the broader implications of post-process theory have very little to do with process” (98). Breuch supports her argument by critiquing the arguments of many scholars, as well as examining Thomas Kent’s arguments. Her purpose is to closely examine the utility and limitations of post-process theory in order to better know what it can contribute to pedagogy.  Her argument is aimed at her fellow scholars and teachers. As a student and possible future teacher, I found her evidence to be appealing, as she concludes that there should be an emphasis on the students’ needs and willingness to adapt to those needs as teachers.

In the article, “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy,” Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford observe that in the discussion of the importance of audience “the arguments advocated by each side of the current debate oversimplify the act of making meaning through written discourse” (78). Ede and Lunsford support their claim by examining and criticizing the arguments of those who believe the audience is addressed and those who believe that audience is invoked, as well as offering their own “alternate formulation” (78). Their purpose is to show a more dynamic view in order to look at the relationship between author and audience. They clearly state their audience as the editor of the scholarly journal in which they were published, the readers of that journal, as well as the writers of the essays they examined in their own; they also acknowledge that their audience is not static and it may change. As a student and a possible future teacher, I enjoyed their deconstruction of both sides of the argument and found it helpful that they offered an alternative somewhere in the middle of the chasm.

In the article “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction, Walter J. Ong asserts that writers “[have] to make [their] readers up, fictionalize them” (59). Ong validates his assertion through anecdotal information and references to various authors and their methods of interacting with their imagined audiences. His purpose is to explore how a writer constructs an audience in order to better understand the relationships between said writers and their audiences. I believe that Ong is directing his ideas to the academic community and writers in general. As a student and an avid reader, I found his ideas riveting at times, and excessive at others. 

In the article “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers,” Sondra Perl establishes that “teachers may first need to identify which characteristic components of each student’s process facilitate writing and which inhibit before further teaching takes place” (38). Perl substantiates her claim through a study of five unskilled college writers and their composing processes. Her purpose is to closely study how unskilled writers compose in order to show that “beginning” writers do have a process that can be utilized and polished. She suggests that the results of her study will be useful to teachers. As a student and possible future teacher, I found her evidence excessive but the discussion of her findings was intriguing and informative. 

In the article “Writing as a Mode of Learning,” Janet Emig asserts that “writing represents a unique mode of learning” (7). Emig supports her claim using evidence from psychologists and researchers of the brain. Her purpose is to prove that writing is an important tool for learning in order to reinforce the idea that is an essential part of learning and must be preserved. I believe that Emig is directing her article to the academic community at large. As a student, I found Emig’s argument and evidence to be convincing and informative.