College Composition and Communication, Vol. 38, No. 1, February 1987

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v38-1

Harris, Joseph. Rev. of Perspectives on Research and Scholarship in Composition by Ben W. McClelland and Timothy R. Donovan. CCC 38.1 (1987): 101-102.

Halpern, Jeanne W. Rev. of The Variables of Composition: Process and Product in a Business Setting by Glenn J. Broadhead and Richard C. Freed. CCC 38.1 (1987): 102-103.

Crosby, Harry H. Rev. of Frames of Mind: A Course in Composition by Judith Fishman Summerfield and Geoffrey Summerfield. CCC 38.1 (1987): 104.

Royster, Jacqueline Jones. Rev. of Writing Worth Reading: A Practical Guide by Nancy Huddleston Packer and John Timpane. CCC 38.1 (1987): 105.

Krupa, Gene H. Rev. of The Committed Writer: Mastering Nonfiction Genres by Harry H. Crosby and Duncan A. Carter. CCC 38.1 (1987): 105-107.

Harris, Jeanette. Rev. of The Writer’s Craft: A Process Reader by Sheena Gillespie, Robert Singleton, and Robert Becker. CCC 38.1 (1987): 107-108.

Hahn, Stephen. “Counter-Statement: Using Written Dialogue to Develop Critical Thinking and Writing.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 97-100.

Lackey, Kris. “Amongst the Awful Subtexts: Scholes, The Daily Planet, and Freshman Composition.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 88-93.

Hoat, Nancy. “Conquering the Myth: Expository Writing and Computer Programming.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 93-95.

Campbell, Judy, and Eileen Ewing. “Stepping through a Mirror: The Historical Narrative Assignment.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 95-97.

Irmscher, William F. “Finding a Comfortable Identity.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 81-87.

Abstract:

Irmscher argues that the reason composition as a field is undermined in the academy is because composition does not have research methods that accommodate the particular needs of research-teachers who are investigating the complex writing process. The empirical research methods used in the 1970s and early 1980s “complicated the familiar and obfuscated the obvious” by microanalyzing the composing process. Composition should borrow the insights of other disciplines, but it needs to create its own humanistic, dramatistic model of inquiry that takes into account the specific needs and values of the field. In his conclusion, Irmscher lists the criteria he believes should be at the forefront of scholarly inquiry in composition.

Keywords:

ccc38.3 Composition Research Studies Writing English JHillocks RBraddock Discipline Inquiry Subjects Teaching Experience

Works Cited

Braddock, Richard, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer. Research in Written Composition. Champaign: NCTE, 1963.

Burke, Kenneth. “Terministic Screens.” Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966. 44-62.

Coles, William E., Jr. The Plural I. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.

Emig, Janet. “Inquiry Paradigms and Writing.” CCC 33 (1982): 64-75.

—. “The Tacit Tradition: The Inevitability of a Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Writing Research” in Reinventing the Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Ian Pringle. Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of English, 1980. 9-17.

Hagstrum, Jean H. Review of Research in Written Composition. College English 26 (1964): 53-56. Hairston, Maxine. “Breaking Our Bonds and Reaffirming Our Connections.” CCC 36 (1985):272-282.

Hillocks, George, Jr. Research on Written Composition. Urbana: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1986.

Lloyd-Jones, Richard. “Richard Braddock.” Traditions of Inquiry. Ed. John Brereton. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. 153-170.

Odell, Lee, and Dixie Goswami, eds. Writing in Nonacademic Settings. New York: Guilford, 1985.

Hashimoto, I. “Voice as Juice: Some Reservations about Evangelic Composition.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 70-80.

Abstract:

Hasimoto equates composition’s obsession with the concept of voice in writing with Christian evangelism. Using the descriptions of the writer’s voice by compositionists like Elbow and Murray, Hasimoto shows how the discipline favors writing that has “voice” – energy, emotion, power, individuality, and feeling – and demonizes “academic” writing. He argues that writing with a “voice” is not appropriate for all students and in all situations. Also, he points out that advocates for writing with a “voice” use anti-intellectual appeals that undermine the importance of teaching college composition.

Keywords:

ccc38.1 Voice Writing Students Juice PElbow Power Composition DStewart Teachers Cheerleading

Works Cited

Baker, Sheridan and Robert E. Yarber. The Practical Stylist with Readings. 6th ed. New York: Harper, 1986.

Bartholomy, David. Sometimes You Just Have to Stand Naked: A Guide to Interesting Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983.

Coles, William E., Jr. and James Vopat. What Makes Writing Good: A Multiperspective. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1985.

Davis, Roberta, Harriette Behringer and Doris Wheelus. Cheerleading and Baton Twirling. New York: Grosset, 1972.

Elbow, Peter. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford, 1981.

Graham, Billy. Peace With God. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1968.

Hairston, Maxine C. Successful Writing. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1986.

Hamalian, Leo. “The Visible Voice: An Approach to Writing.” The English Journal 59 (1970): 227-230.

Hofstadter, Richard. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Knopf, 1970.

Lannon, John M. The Writing Process: A Concise Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, 1986.

Macrorie, Ken. Searching Writing: A Contextbook. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden, 1980.

—. Uptaught. New York: Hayden, 1970.

Miller, James E., Jr. and Stephen N. Judy. Writing in Reality. New York: Harper, 1978.

Murray, Donald M. A Writer Teaches Writing. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton, 1985.

—. Write to Learn. New York: Holt, 1984.

President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Report of the Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Ruszkiewicz, John J. Well-Bound Words: A Rhetoric. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1981.

Schuller, Robert H. Move Ahead with Possibility Thinking. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1967.

Stewart, Donald C. The Versatile Writer. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1986.

Tournier, Paul. The Adventure of Living. Trans. Edwin Hudson. New York: Harper, 1965.

Beach, Richard. “Differences in Autobiographical Narratives of English Teachers, College Freshmen, and Seventh Graders.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 56-69.

Abstract:

Beach uses social cognitive development theories to understand the differences between the construction of the past and present selves in the autobiographical writing of adolescents and adults. He conducts a study of the autobiographical writing of seventh graders, college freshman, and English teachers. Based on the results of his study, Beach argues that teachers, when assessing autobiographical writing, need to recognize the wide gulf between their own and their students’ developmental perspectives and create prewriting exercises that help their students write more point-driven pieces that have a clearer distinction between past and present perspectives.

Keywords:

ccc38.1 College Adults Beliefs Teachers Adolescents Development Essays Experience Autobiography Narratives Graders

Works Cited

Alexrod, Rise, and Charles Cooper, The St. Martin’s Guide to Writing, New York: St. Martin’s, 1985.

Beach, Richard. “The Use of Rhetorical Strategies in Narrative and Analytic Modes.” American Educational Research Association. Chicago, 1 April 1985.

Beach, Richard, and Linda Wendler. “Developmental Differences in Responses to a Short Story.” Research in the Teaching of English (in press).

Barenboim, Charles. “Development of Recursive and Nonrecursive Thinking about Persons.” Developmental Psychology 14 (1978): 419-420.

Bernstein, Robert. “The Development of the Self-System during Adolescence.” Journal of Genetic Psychology 136 (1980): 231-245.

Coe, Richard. When the Grass was Taller: Autobiography and the Experience of Childhood. New Haven: Yale UP, 1984.

Cooper, Charles. “Procedures for Describing Written Texts.” Research on Composition: Principles and Methods. Ed. Peter Mosenthall, Lynne Tamor, and Sean Walmsely. New York: Longman, 1983.287-313.

—. “A Cross-Sectional Study of the Development of Autobiographical Writing (Ages 9, 13, 18, and Older adults).” Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapolis, 19 March 1985.

Elkind, David. “Understanding the Young Adolescent.” Adolescence 13 (1978): 127-134.

Erickson, Erik. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton, 1968.

Fitzgerald, Joseph. “Sampling Autobiographical Memory Reports in Adolescents.” Developmental Psychology 16 (1980): 675-676.

Flavell, John. Cognitive Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977.

Gould, Roger. “Transformations during Early and Middle Adult Years.” Themes of Work and Love in Adulthood. Ed. Neil Smelser and Erik Erikson. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980. 213-237.

Gunn, Janet. Autobiography: Toward a Poetics of Experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1982.

Hill, John. Understanding Early Adolescence: A Framework. Chapel Hill, NC: The Center for Study of Early Adolescence, 1980.

Hunt, Russell and Douglas Vipond. “Crash-Testing a Transactional Model of Literary Reading.” Reader 14 (1985): 23-39.

Kegan, Robert. The Evolving Self. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1982.

Labov, William. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1972.

Larson, Reed, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and Robert Graef. “Mood Variability and the Psycho

Social Adjustment of Adolescents.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 9 (1980): 469-490.

Loevinger, Jane. Ego Development: Conceptions and Theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.

Odell, Lee, and Charles Cooper. “Describing Responses to Works of Fiction.” Research in the Teaching of English 10 (1980): 203-225.

Olney, James. Metaphors of Self: The Meaning of Autobiography. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1972.

Peel, Edward. The Nature of Adolescent Judgment. London: Staples, 1971.

Rubin, David. Autobiographical Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986.

Selman, Robert. The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding: Developmental and Clinical Analyses. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Straw, Stanley. “Collaborative Learning and Reading for Theme in Poetry.” National Council of Teachers of English. San Antonio, 24 November 1986.

Svensson, Cai. The Construction of Poetic Meaning. Uppsala, Sweden: Liber, 1985.

Roth, Robert G. “The Evolving Audience: Alternatives to Audience Accommodation.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 47-55.

Abstract:

In a study of three student writers’ composing processes, Roth investigates whether students determine their audience before they write or if they revise and invent their audience during the composing process. He finds that all three students use strategies to keep their audiences flexible and variable. Some of the strategies, which instructors could teach to their students, include considering opposing viewpoints, articulating arguments without being apologetic, and projecting the self as the audience. Teachers, Roth argues, should realize that audience definition is a creative process and not insist that their students define, analyze, and accommodate a particular audience at the beginning of a writing task because that can unnecessarily restrict the student writer.

Keywords:

ccc38.1 Audience Readers Writers Writing Students Process Texts Self College Essays Purposes Strategies IdealReader

Works Cited

Berkenkotter, Carol. “Understanding a Writer’s Awareness of Audience.” CCC 32 (1981): 388-99.

Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, and Harold Rosen. The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan, 1975.

Dillon, George L. Constructing Texts: Elements of a Theory of Composition and Style. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1981.

Ede, Lisa, and Andrea Lunsford. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy.” CCC 35 (1984): 155-71.

Emig, Janet. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” CCC 28 (1977): 122-28.

Flower, Linda, and John Hayes. “The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem.” CCC 31 (1980): 21-32.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Marble Faun. The Complete Novels and Selected Tales of Nathaniel Hawthorne. Ed. Norman Holmes Pearson. New York: Random, 1937.

Iser, Wolfgang. The Implied Reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974.

Kroll, Barry M. “Writing for Readers: Three Perspectives on Audience.” CCC 35 (1984): 172-85.

Mead, George H. Mind, Self, and Society. 1934. Ed. & introd. Charles W. Morris. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1962.

Odell, Lee, Dixie Goswami, and Doris Quick. “Writing outside the English Composition Class: Implications for Teaching and for Learning.” Literacy for Lift: The Demand for Reading and Writing. Ed. Richard W. Bailey and Robin Melanie Fosheim. New York: MLA, 1983. 175-94.

Ong, Walter J. “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction.” PMLA 90 (1975): 9-21.

Park, Douglas B. “Analyzing Audiences.” CCC 37 (1986): 478-488.

—. “The Meanings of ‘Audience.'” College English 44 (1982): 247-57.

Rosenblatt, Louise M. The Reader, the Text, the Poem. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1978.

Walzer, Arthur E. “Articles from the ‘California Divorce Project’: A Case Study of the Concept of Audience.” CCC 36 (1985): 150-59.

Wolcott, Willa. “Writing Instruction and Assessment: The Need for Interplay between Process and Product.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 40-46.

Abstract:

Wolcott explains that there is a disconnect between the process model of writing instruction, which emphasizes invention and revision, and current standardized writing assessment tests, which only evaluate the product. Because students will face these kinds of tests both at the university and later in their careers, she argues that composition teachers must teach students how to tackle these types of writing situations. The tests shouldn’t dictate our composition classes, but we should show students how to adapt the process model of composing to timed, graded writing tasks.

Keywords:

ccc38.1 Writing Students Assessment Process Testing Essays Topics Audience Research

Works Cited

Bataille, Robert R. “Writing in the World of Work: What Our Graduates Report.” CCC 33 (1982): 276-280.

Beach, Richard. “Demonstrating Techniques for Assessing Writing in the Writing Conference.” CCC 37 (1986): 56-65.

Bridwell, Lillian. “Revising Strategies in Twelfth-grade Students’ Transactional Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 14 (1980): 197-222.

Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, Harold Rosen. The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan Education Ltd., 1975.

Brossell, Gordon. “Current Research and Unanswered Questions in Writing Assessment.” Writing Assessment: Issues and Strategies. Ed. Karen L. Greenberg, Harvey S. Wiener, and Richard A. Donovan. New York: Longman, 1986. 168-180.

—. “Research on Writing Assessment.” Notes from the National Testing Network in Writing (1985): 10.

Brossell, Gordon and Barbara Hoetker Ash. “An Experiment with the Wording of Essay Topics.” CCC 35 (1984): 423-425.

Camp, Roberta. “The Writing Folder in Post-Secondary Assessment.” Directions and Misdirections in English Evaluation. Ed. Peter J. A. Evans. Ottawa: The Canadian Council of Teachers of English, 1985. 91-99.

Carroll, Joyce Armstrong. “Process into Product: Teacher Awareness of the Writing Process Affects Students’ Written Products.” New Directions in Composition Research. Ed. Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell. New York: The Guilford Press, 1984. 315-333.

Cooper, Charles R. and Lee Odell. Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1977.

Flower, Linda. Problem Solving Strategies for Writing. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1981.

Flower, Linda and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” CCC 32 (1981): 365-386.

Freedman, Sarah Warshauer. “The Registers of Student and Professional Expository Writing: Influences on Teachers’ Responses.” New Directions in Composition Research. Ed. Richard Beach and Lillian Bridwell. New York: The Guilford Press, 1984. 334-347.

Greenberg, Karen L. “Competency Testing: What Role Should Teachers of Composition Play?” CCC 33 (1982): 366-376.

Hillocks, Jr., George. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana, Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communications Skills and the National Conference on Research in English, 1986.

Hoetker, James. “Essay Examination Topics and Students’ Writing.” CCC 33 (1982): 377-392.

Lederman, Marie Jean. “Why Test?” Writing Assessment; Issues and Strategies, Ed. Karen L. Greenberg, Harvey S. Wiener, and Richard A. Donovan. New York: Longman, 1986. 35-43.

Lloyd-Jones, Richard. “Skepticism about Test Scores.” Notes from the National Testing Network in Writing (1982): 3, 9.

Quellmalz, Edys and Richard Stiggins. “Problems and Pitfalls in Writing Assessment.” Notes from the National Testing Network in Writing (1985): 4.

Rubin, Donnalee. “Evaluating Freshman Writers: What Do Students Really Learn?” College English 45 (1983): 373-379.

Ruth, Leo and Sandra Murphy. “Designing Topics for Writing Assessment: Problems of Meaning.” CCC 35 (1984): 410-421.

Smagorinsky, Peter. “An Apology for Structured Composition Instruction.” Written Communication 3 (1986): 105-121.

Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” CCC 31 (1980): 378-388.

White, Edward M. Teaching and Assessing Writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Winters, Lynn. The Effects of Differing Response Criteria on the Assessment of Writing Competence. University of California, Los Angeles. Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1978. ERIC ED 212 659.

Kemp, Fred. “The User-Friendly Fallacy.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 32-39.

Abstract:

Kemp argues for the development and use of open-response computer programs in writing instruction, arguing that the close-response programs in use at the time relegated the computer to remedial and fact-checking uses. He claims that the full potential of the computer in composition instruction can be realized when people challenge the “user-friendly fallacy,” the belief that computers should be able to interact with students’ ideas as a human does, replicating human cognition. Instead, Kemp argues that open-response programs, like Hugh Burnes’ TOPOI computer program, which assists students with invention by asking prompts and questions derived from uses Aristotle’s 28 enthymeme topics, are the most valuable type of program because they do not limit students’ response and guide them into making connections between their ideas.

Keywords:

ccc38.1 Students HBurns Computers Software Students Response Instruction WWresch Machine Invention Process UserFriendly Thesis

Works Cited

Aristotle. The ‘Art’ of Rhetoric. Trans. J. H. Freese. Ed. G. P. Goold. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1982.

Arms, Valerie. “Creating and Recreating.” CCC 34 (1983): 355-58.

Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

Burns, Hugh. “Recollections of First-Generation Computer-Assisted Prewriting.” Wresch, The Computer in Composition Instruction: A Writer’s Tool. 15-33.

—. “Stimulating Invention in English Composition through Computer-Assisted Instruction.” Diss. U of Texas, 1979.

—, and George H. Culp. “Stimulating Invention in English Composition through Computer-Assisted Instruction.” Educational Technology 20.8 (1980): 5-10.

Herrmann, Andrea W. “Using the Computer as Writing Teacher: The Heart of the Great Debates.” Proceedings of the Annual Summer Conference on “The Computer: Extension of the Human Mind II” Eugene, OR: July 20-22, 1983. ED 260 406.

Hertz, Robert M. “Problems of Computer-Assisted Instruction in Composition.” The Computing Teacher Sept. 1986: 62-64.

Rodrigues, Dawn, and Raymond Rodrigues. “Computer-Based Problem Solving.” Wresch, The Computer in Composition Instruction: A Writer’s Tool. 34-46.

Schank, Roger, and Peter Childers. The Cognitive Computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1984.

Selfe, Cynthia, and Billie J. Wahlstrom. “The Benevolent Beast: Computer-Assisted Instruction for Teaching Writing.” The Writing Instructor 2 (1983): 183-92.

Schwartz, Helen. “Teaching Writing with Computer Aids.” College English 46 (1984): 239-47.

Wresch, William, Ed. The Computer in Composition Instruction: A Writer’s Tool. Urbana: NCTE, 1984.

Young, R. E., A. L. Becker, and K. L. Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1970.

Strong, William. “Language as Teacher.” CCC 38.1 (1987): 21-31.

Abstract:

Strong investigates the psycholinguistic connection between reading and writing and claims that when writers compose, they write and revise their texts as they alternate between being two different kinds of readers. First, there is the reader-at-work, the writer’s image of someone else who is primarily concerned with content and comprehension. Second, there is the reader-at-play, the writer’s own “best self” who desires innovation and creativity. Strong compares his reader schema to Bartholomae’s rhetorics of selection and combination. Both rhetorics serve their own purpose, one to divide and categorize information and the other to synthesize, and writers use both during the composing process.

Keywords:

ccc38.1 Reading Rhetoric Texts Readers Writers Sense Language Words Mind Meaning Strategy Self World Writing Experience HGardner DBartholomae SPerl

Works Cited

Anderson, Richard c., and Pearson, David. “A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading.” Handbook of Reading Research. Ed. P. David Pearson. New York: Longman, Green, 1984.255-291.

Bartholomae, David. “Wistful and Admiring: The Rhetoric of Combination.” Sentence Combining: A Rhetorical Perspective. Eds. Donald A. Daiker, Andrew Kerek, and Max Morenberg. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1985. 303-320.

Bruner, Jerome. In Search of Mind: Essays in Autobiography. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.

Elbow, Peter. Writing with Power. New York: Oxford, 1981.

Gardner, Howard. Art, Mind, and Brain. New York: Basic Books, 1982.

Langer, Judith A. “Facilitating Text Processing: The Elaboration of Prior Knowledge.” Reader Meets Author/Bridging the Gap: A Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspective. Eds. Judith A. Langer and M. Smith-Burke. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1982. 149-162.

Langer, Suzanne. Philosophy in a New Key. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1942.

Macrorie, Ken. Searching Writing. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1980.

Murray, Donald M. “Write Before Writing.” CCC 29 (1978): 375-81.

—. “Teaching the Other Self: The Writer’s First Reader.” CCC33 (1982): 140-47.

Perl, Sondra. “Understanding Composing.” CCC 31 (1980): 363-69.

Piaget, Jean. “The Psychogenesis of Knowledge and its Epistemological Significance.” Language and Learning. Ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980. 23-34.

Pirsig, Robert M. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. New York: William Morrow, 1974.

Smith, Frank. Understanding Reading. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1984.