6 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
    1. If we can remember that there is no writing in general and no magic formula that will help us write well in all situations, we are more likely to be able to use (or transfer or repurpose) what we know effectively from prior writing situations

      It is very important to remember that learning to write in general is not realistic and that writing is about audience and setting. Teachers that teach students one certain way to write are not setting them up for success and if they continue to teach them this way of writing, students will never learn how to truly write.

    2. The idea that we can all learn to “write in general” is not just a harmless myth. It’s a dangerous idea that needs to die because it hurts students and frustrates teachers and employers. And writers who believe it are easily discouraged because they don’t know how to learn what they need to learn in new writing situations.

      When teachers teach students the idea that there is a way to learn to write in general it is setting them up for failure. It is frustrating to other teachers and employers when teachers try to teach students one specific way to write because there is not one single way to write, it all depends on audience and setting.

    3. As students write across their general education courses, they find themselves repeatedly asked to write essays or research papers, but often learn the hard way that their history teacher, poetry teacher, and philosophy teacher all mean and expect very different things by “essay” or “research paper.” This is because context, audience, purpose, medium, history, and values of the community all impact what writing is and needs to be in each situation.

      Students are required by different teachers to "write" essays in so many different forms. Each teacher has a different requirement when it comes to how to actually write a good essay. There is no actual way to teach someone how to write an essay because it is all about audience and situation.

    4. Blame for the collapse of literacy shifts from high-school teach-ers to technology, television, Internet, smart phones, laptops, and tablets—the same technology we often hope will rescue us from illiteracy—to a lack of adequate funding for teacher education and the institutions that provide literacy instruction. Since education has become more readily available to people of color and the lower middle and working classes, the demand for literacy instruction has increased.

      A lot of things were to blame for the decline in literacy. Originally the blame landed on the teachers, however, recently the blame has shifted towards technology. The hope for technology was originally to help us shift away from illiteracy, however, it seems as though it is doing the exact opposite of that.

    5. As the purpose of higher education changed and more academic institutions were established, more people began going to college. The economic and educational backgrounds of new students became more varied. And with each change that was witnessed in students, technology, and media, academics and non-academics alike bemoaned the decline of literacy.

      As more education systems were established, the purpose of higher education changed and a lot more people started going to college. This caused the variation in educational and economic backgrounds of students. All of these changes in technology were just the start of the decline of literacy.

    6. Sheils worried that tech-nologies such as computer printouts and the conference call were destroying Americans’ abilities to produce clear and concise prose in professional settings, warning that the decline of literacy means that they would soon find themselves back in Babel.

      Technological advancements are beginning to take place of important learning skills within society today. Some worry that if technology continues to advance illiteracy will continue increase. While technological advancements are important, the decrease of illiteracy is also very important. It is now seen that some education systems are focusing schooling solely on technology and agriculture.