Shafaq Siddiqui
ENGL 1302- Online
Prof. Piercy
10-25-2017
Rhetorical Essay
How can I compare two articles when one author is clearly questioning the fact whether the right way of composition writing is being taught to the students, whereas the other writer knows for sure what works in teaching composition? The two articles that we will be comparing today are “Are We Teaching Composition All Wrong?” by Joseph R. Teller and “We Know What Works in Teaching Composition” by Doug Hesse. Both of the authors have very different perspectives as to how the students should be taught composition (creative writing) and whether the process of the writing should be more important or the outcome. With having differences, they also have similarities in their …show more content…
His articles consist of him talking about different steps in composition writing such as organizing and revising etc. On the other hand, Hesse proclaims in his article that the process may be an important part of composition writing, the outcome should be more important and more focused on. He disagrees with Teller where he says, “my students can’t write a clear sentence to save their lives, and I’ve had it.” Teller also states in various other parts of this article, that students don’t know how to write a proper sentence. In reply to this, Hesse discusses a survey where Hesse and 20 of his colleagues “gathered and analyzed a corpus of 500,000 words of student writing from classes across the campus.” Where they found that, “in fact, well over 90 percent of the sentences coded clear and error free.”
One thing which caught my interest was the difference of opinion between the two authors about Peer review and its result. As per Teller’s experience, peer reading is mostly a waste of time and energy with no productive outcome of a good composition, Hesse thinks otherwise. He states that some of the best written work has come out of peer reading experiments. While, Teller thinks that students usually ignore their classmates’ suggestions in peer workshops, Hesse explains that they acknowledge the feedback and produce their best …show more content…
Rather, he was contending product over process, as an issue of accentuation, and that substance was frequently past his ken. That is, participating simultaneously and having learning about substance are good for nothing in composing in the event that they don't bring about a quality item (as a matter of fact an inquiry asking standard that is on a very basic level hazardous to any talk of showing composing, and, essentially for this situation, look into relating to it). He was additionally contending that he, not his understudies, is in a superior position to productively and proficiently manage the procedure. Further, in re-perusing Professor Teller's article I see nothing that refuses the bulleted standards offered here. What pesters me with this piece is its recommendation that the exploration base pretty much rules out discourse about issues that are probably not going to be completely settled by experimental information, or more terrible that examination has settled them for the last time. On the off chance that the last is the situation, it appears to be sensible for scientists to suspend any further examinations of how composing direction may be enhanced and proceed onward to different
ENGL 1302- Online
Prof. Piercy
10-25-2017
Rhetorical Essay
How can I compare two articles when one author is clearly questioning the fact whether the right way of composition writing is being taught to the students, whereas the other writer knows for sure what works in teaching composition? The two articles that we will be comparing today are “Are We Teaching Composition All Wrong?” by Joseph R. Teller and “We Know What Works in Teaching Composition” by Doug Hesse. Both of the authors have very different perspectives as to how the students should be taught composition (creative writing) and whether the process of the writing should be more important or the outcome. With having differences, they also have similarities in their …show more content…
His articles consist of him talking about different steps in composition writing such as organizing and revising etc. On the other hand, Hesse proclaims in his article that the process may be an important part of composition writing, the outcome should be more important and more focused on. He disagrees with Teller where he says, “my students can’t write a clear sentence to save their lives, and I’ve had it.” Teller also states in various other parts of this article, that students don’t know how to write a proper sentence. In reply to this, Hesse discusses a survey where Hesse and 20 of his colleagues “gathered and analyzed a corpus of 500,000 words of student writing from classes across the campus.” Where they found that, “in fact, well over 90 percent of the sentences coded clear and error free.”
One thing which caught my interest was the difference of opinion between the two authors about Peer review and its result. As per Teller’s experience, peer reading is mostly a waste of time and energy with no productive outcome of a good composition, Hesse thinks otherwise. He states that some of the best written work has come out of peer reading experiments. While, Teller thinks that students usually ignore their classmates’ suggestions in peer workshops, Hesse explains that they acknowledge the feedback and produce their best …show more content…
Rather, he was contending product over process, as an issue of accentuation, and that substance was frequently past his ken. That is, participating simultaneously and having learning about substance are good for nothing in composing in the event that they don't bring about a quality item (as a matter of fact an inquiry asking standard that is on a very basic level hazardous to any talk of showing composing, and, essentially for this situation, look into relating to it). He was additionally contending that he, not his understudies, is in a superior position to productively and proficiently manage the procedure. Further, in re-perusing Professor Teller's article I see nothing that refuses the bulleted standards offered here. What pesters me with this piece is its recommendation that the exploration base pretty much rules out discourse about issues that are probably not going to be completely settled by experimental information, or more terrible that examination has settled them for the last time. On the off chance that the last is the situation, it appears to be sensible for scientists to suspend any further examinations of how composing direction may be enhanced and proceed onward to different