"Semiotics and the English Language Arts. ERIC Digest." ERICDigests.Org - Providing Full-text Access to ERIC Digests. Web. 24 Nov. 2010. .
Milgram, Stanley. “The Perils of Obedience”. Writing & Reading for ACP Composition. Ed. Thomas E. Leahey and Christine R. Farris. New York: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2009. 212-224. Print.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "Education." The Language of Composition. Ed. Renee H. Shea, Lawrence Scanlon, and Robin Dissin Aufses. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 102-09. Print. Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities. New York: Harper Perennial, 1992. Print.
One of the biggest debates in composition theory seems to be the notion of fostering the “creative impulse” versus “structure” in the writing classroom. We have run into this argument time and again in class, and it is waged on a larger scale in the “Bartholomae and Elbow Debate” in terms of academic versus writing centered classes. In class we have discussed “structure” as grammar, and the “creative impulse” as the desire students have to break the rules of language in their own creative endeavors. Bartholomae and Elbow provide us with natural extensions of this argument in their own debate. The “academic classroom” according to Bartholomae is more beneficial to students, as they gain a sense of intertextuality and learn how to write and respond to the academic writing that has preceded them ( i.e. critical theory and literature). Elbow on the other hand fosters the idea that students will learn how to write more effectively within smaller writing communities that are created right within the classroom itself and spends more time in his own classes with that side of the issue. This is the conflict that we will run into no matter what facet of composition theory we discuss. The problem with this debate, however, is that both Elbow and Bartholomae are conceiving of these two (supposedly) oppositional roles too narrowly. They are both at odds concerning the role of each in the writing classroom despite the fact that they see the commonalities. It is important for all teachers of writing to address this debate, and be able to see past it, which as evidenced in the debate in Cross Talk, Elbow and Bartholomae were not able to do. I feel as if my first personal essay addressed these matters as well, although I did not deal them specific...
Up until the last two century’s girls going to school was uncommon and looked down on. Throughout history, women would only go to school to learn how to manage a household and learn how to do common things that women were expected to know how to do when they got married and had kids. Women were limited to only be educated as caretakers, while men were allowed to pursue any type of education they wanted. Women where not a key figure in education decades ago. Most people couldn’t afford to go to school and get their education before the mid twentieth century, as a result only people who were wealthy went to school witch most of the time happened to be men. Over time women began to have more rights in their education and school was made a priority
Michele Gill, Ph.D. the author of this article is currently an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Central Florida. Her interests are in educational psychology and education reform. Her thesis, published in 2012, focused on the representation of young male adults in contemporary fiction, and appears to be the forerunner of the article, “Best Mates: an exploration of male adolescent friendships in contemporary young adult fictions”.
Let’s face it. Can one fully buy into Roland Barthes’ claim that “The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author”? (172). Even if “it is language which speaks, not the author” (168), an author is responsible for the creation of a unique sequence of words in a novel, a poem or an article. The canvas on which freeplaying signifiers paint themselves seems so vast to Barthes that “the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original” (170). His claim, when taken at face value, is equivalent to saying that since paint exists, there can be no Painter. But it would be a faux pas give his idea such a naïve reading—a reading strictly limited to written texts. When applied to projects such as Group art, music and film, his theory gains greater validity. Three such works that illustrate the complexities of authorship are Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party (1979), Gram Parsons’ second solo album, Grievous Angel (1974), and the 1939 MGM film version of The Wizard of Oz. Adding to Barthes’ idea proposed in “The Death of the Author” will be discussions of Michel Foucault’s “What is the Author?” and Andrew Sarris’ auteur theory to understand the complexities of claiming authorship. These examples will show that the Author is a construct that might not disappear as quickly as Barthes and Foucault had anticipated.
In the Washington post the essay “Why Schools Are Failing Our Boys” relates to the study of the “boy problem” Fink’s concern is that boys have a harder time in school causing them to drop out or not to go on to college. I agree with Fink’s concern because of the mistreatment of genders and the pressure put on students as a whole. Based on class readings it has been illustrated that throughout history boys felt as though school made them feel less masculine. From what I have personally seen in school, boys are constantly being told to “man up”. I feel as though boys are expected to act a certain way and all students are expected to conform to a certain type of learning. Fink’s truthful experience through her son is an accurate model on how