voice & our identities as writers

Both Peter Elbow's "Voice in Writing Again" and Nancy Sommers's "Responding to Student Writing" pair together in a way I don't think I was initially expecting. At first, I thought it would be a more generic concept of how the voice is just an important aspect of writing, and that teachers should empathize with the fact that the student is exercising that voice. I thought it would be similar to what we heard a few weeks ago, with the idea of writing comments on students' papers.

Instead, I was pleasantly surprised, mostly with Elbow's article, in that the concept of voice becomes a multifaceted tool in the process of writing. Ultimately, you can either include or exclude it in a variety of ways to understand the significance of its presence and its influence in your writing. To add, voice as a physical construction can help communicate ideas of writing better, or even help to understand texts more. Overall, Elbow went through a variety of ways to think about voice in relationship to our identities as writers.

More specifically, I found the one passage about "attention to voice can help with reading" very intriguing, and I agree with Elbow wholeheartedly (178). By reading texts aloud, I feel like it forces you to understand it more and be actively involved in what it is saying, as opposed to playing a more passive role by listening to it. When reading, your brain tries to process and comprehend it more, because I believe that once it leaves your lips, those words temporarily "belong to you" - as such, you want to make sure they are true, authentic, and not vague or nonsensical to you. Consequently, it will help you "own" those words and convey the text, with your voice, to your audience, in such a way that you want them to understand exactly what it is you are trying to say. That active participation, then, creates this responsibility of "your words," as you now have to "take ownership" of them for the class, especially if asked to explain later.

I also agreed with Elbow's argument of ignoring voice being essential in teaching writing (181). While voice adds individualism to your paper and helps shape the argument and tone, it should not takeover your writing completely. If that happens, the paper then becomes overwhelmed with subjectivity, as opposed to a level of objectiveness needed for a student to write a "good" academic paper. Research, of course, needs to be done before you can even make a claim; then, once you logically reason your argument, you can let your voice through to highlight your paper, which can make it more powerful and authentic. 

Elbow's ideas, then, can be paired with an understanding of Sommers's article. Sommers essentially talks about the teacher's voice when commenting on student papers, which can be described as harsh, vague, and overall confusing for the student. Additionally, Sommers also reflects on the fact that teachers do not, or maybe cannot, take the time to write insightful comments that work to develop the conversation of the students' work even further. Instead, most comments are just written for the use of the student to use of a "final draft," as opposed to an ongoing development and collaboration of their writing and ideas. We can see that voice, especially the tone, is not communicated in the responses to students' writing. To add, the teacher's vagueness becomes an issue as well, which is possibly related to the Aristotelian quote Elbow mentioned of, "It helps to be trustworthy; but if you're skilled, fake it" (qtd. in 169). Teachers might use that leverage of authority to indirectly "help" their students, instead of being direct and explicit in how their writing could be improved. While they might not want to tell their students exactly "what to do" to produce a good paper, they use abstract language in hopes of "intellectually guiding" them to the best form of their paper - this mostly ends in frustration for the students, and could be seen as aloofness, even laziness, on the teacher's part.

Additionally, I feel like Elbow's ideas about voice can also translate into my own passion project for our Genius Hour. In particular, the idea of voice, especially in poetry, has always fascinated me. As Allen Ginsberg inquired, what do you tell your muse, and what do you tell your friends? Raw and authentic language straddles those lines, and that is what I personally find poetic (barring completely confessional poetry - that stuff is awful). I'm thinking of exploring those concepts further, as I think being personal and vulnerable with your audience is a significant part of my own poetics - that honesty is the connection I want to build with people who want to read my poetry. In my #whyIwrite contribution, it conveys that same sentiment:

responses to student writing

While the teacher's perspective was harder to relate to reading these two articles, I could definitely empathize more with the students' feelings toward short and unclear comments. The short comments of "not clear," "be more specific," or just "awk" have been all too frustrating; consequently, the tone of the short comments, while familiar to what the teacher wanted to convey, can come across wrong for the student. Even though it's not the case, I've misinterpreted it as something akin to disinterest, which does not make any writer feel very encouraged.

With that being said, I liked that both articles tried to tackle fixing those misunderstandings. In particular, I liked that in Beach and Friedrich's article, "Response to Writing," they discussed the idea of implementing oral commentary instead of written, since it is overall easier and that the teacher has more of a chance to "elaborate more on comments" (qtd. in 225). Thus, it is almost like having a mini, one-sided conference, but in gives the teacher a chance to go into more depth, and it also makes their tone a lot more clear for students so they do not misinterpret comments.

Even though teachers are responsible for a lot of students, and writing comments can be therefore tedious after awhile, they do need to find a way to make them meaningful. If they cannot do that, it definitely makes the student, as a writer, suffer. They may not understand what the teacher exactly means, and the teacher may not exactly have time for them later on. While I can sympathize with the plight of the teacher, even though it was harder for me to completely stand in their shoes, they are there to help the student blossom, and therefore should make comments that are not many and meaningless, but few and meaningful.

the authenticity of teaching writing in classrooms

In one of the opening lines in Carly Lidvall's "Get Real: Instructional Implications for Authentic Writing Activities," she clearly states that, "Student interest in writing begins once students see a real reason for writing" (3). In that sentence, she summarizes the overall meaning in her paper and study, in that without an authentic outlet or opportunity, writing will forever be a deplorable chore for a student. I couldn't agree more with Lidvall's efforts and analysis for the need for implementing a curriculum which can foster a real interest for students in writing; after all, writing is not just confined to the concept of an academic paper. Once you can make the student realize that, such as through the introduction of a classroom newspaper, students will let their curiosity for the subject take a natural course. Once they find the genuine want to write, it will hopefully carry on in "the bigger picture" of their academic, as well as personal, life.

What I liked most was the idea of a project that could be entirely the students'. While the paper became a newfound responsibility, it was not one that was a burden; instead, it became a creative, personal project that was entirely a reflection of the students' effort. Additionally, they wanted to put thought throughout the whole thing, from the caption of articles to the quotes to the content itself. They were authentically engaging in writing, as well as research - skills that would definitely translate over when tackling academic papers in the future, as well as to the process of making any creative project in general. I enjoyed that perspective. Additionally, it made me reflect on my own academic projects and papers, and how fun they can be when you harbor a genuine interest for the research and writing you are doing. It also made me think of some of my peers and their dread over writing papers - if they had the ability to change their perspective and think of it as fun, like the students from Lidvall's study, would they be able to find more interest in it? Or is that an idea they need to come to on their own, like how Lidvall suggests with the early albeit authentic introduction to the realm of writing?

To add to the idea of being able to inspire and encourage students to write, it is not only the students who have to be interested - the teachers do, too, which ties into the article "Teacher-Writers: Then, Now, and Next." Ultimately, what I took from the article was that teachers who identify as writers need to continue to make their presence known in both the classroom and the world of academia. I don't know much about the politics of writing in the classroom, but it seems like teachers can be intimidated by mandatory curriculum and tight schedules, as well as have a general lack of confidence to identify themselves as writers and assert that in a classroom too. With both staff and students overlooking the concept of writing, teacher-writers shrink back; however, it seems to me the article suggests that teachers persist and be proud of their identity as teacher-writers, since they are important figures to being able to create and develop the ability to write in their classroom. Yet, if a teacher-writer is not as invested, then that genuine interest in writing that Lidvall discusses cannot come to fruition. If teacher-writers develop more ideas for helping writing in classrooms, as well as publish them to their teaching community (like Lidvall), that intellectual communication and camaraderie can start to tackle the "reluctance" that is writing. Ultimately, if the teachers lose sight of their authenticity of what their job can do, it reflects in the students - no amount of mandatory curriculum will be able to bring out the spark of genuine interest like a teacher can.