Category Archives: Uncategorized

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 characteristicContinue reading “Bartholomae, David. “The Study of Error.” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 31, No. 3, Oct. 1980, pp. 253-269. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/356486.”

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 ofContinue reading “Hartwell, Patrick. “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 205-233.”

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 pedagogicalContinue reading “Berlin, James A. “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 235-250.”

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. HisContinue reading “D’Angelo, Frank J. “An Ontological Basis for a Modern Theory of Composing Process.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 141-150.”

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 oughtContinue reading “Kinneavy, James L. “The Basic Aims of Discourse.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 129-139.”

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 asContinue reading “Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman. “Post Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 97-125.”

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 theirContinue reading “Ede, Lisa and Andrea Lunsford. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 77-95.”

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 constructsContinue reading “Ong, Walter J. “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 55-76.”

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. HerContinue reading “Perl, Sondra. “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 17-39.”

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 isContinue reading “Emig, Janet. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory, edited by Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 7-15.”