In Response to Fraiberg's "Composition 2.0" (3.12.13-3.19.13)

Technology is moving forward and so should our writing in formal classrooms. Over the last 15 years, the use of technology in the classroom has increased, but mainly for research and education software. The next frontier, which has been breached by programs like Powerpoint, is fully integrating multimedia and multiple languages into the classroom.

The world is growing, shifting, and developing daily, and at times the more traditional writing field takes a long time update. With many theories still developing about the writing process, basic writing ideas, and how to teach writing (or for some, can it be taught), I believe that sometimes we don't look to the resources around us. As teachers, we should become proficient in these new technologies, and allow students to explore them and utilize them in their papers. 

This is preparation for the real world, where businesses  are using global technology in order to make international trade easier. Communication in multiple languages not only helps make the global community more interactive than it already is, but it strengthens the classroom in building cultural experiences into writing discourse.

My Thoughts on NewKirk (3.5.13-3.12.13)

When reading Barriers to Revision, I was very interested in how Thomas Newkirk presented the material, and what he concluded about the two types of problems students face in the revision process-- incorporating personal knowledge and detail into papers and the lack of feeling the need to revise. Looking back through my writing growth, I've seen instances of both of these times.

I feel that many times students are bombarded with rules to writing, and over time there are more rules to pay attention to than actual writing being done. There is a constant worry not including the correct information, as well as including too much information that makes your paper long and boring. I had to overcome this challenge through truly understanding the purpose of revision.

As I learned more about the process of revision (a concept which even today I still have trouble with), I noticed multiple attributes in my paper that weren't coherent, incomplete, and not detailed enough to prove my points and give my support to my arguments.

Response to "Students' Right to Their Own Language" (2.26.13-3.5.13)

My response to CCCC's document is more of an affirmation of what they stated in the paper. My understanding is that CCCC argues for the further respect of language varieties and dialects in the classroom.   I believe that the culture of the United States perpetuates discrimination against those who do not speak what is labeled as Standard American English. The promotion of SAE in the classroom is understandable, but the adverse effects include inequalities in grading writing, cultural separations, and diminishing the value of the individual language of a student, leading to diminishing the value of ethnic cultures.

CCCC writes on page 7 that "most linguists agree that there is no single homogeneous American 'standard.'" They further state that dialect cannot be inherently good or bad although "the amount of prestige and power possessed by a group can be recognized through its dialect." Dialects have existed since the early formations of English, and they have always existed. Although a dominant dialect may be considered the standard, it should not be considered the Dialect of everyone. The use of language can change according to the domain in which it is spoken, or even in the change of discourse. I don't believe in a Standard American English, but what CCCC calls "edited American English."

Thoughts on Anzaldúa (2.19.13- 2.26.13)

  Reading the work of Anzaldúa interested me very much. The seamless integration of English and Spanish in one work did more justice in supporting bilingualism than if the story were simply written in one or the other. I see this work as one that confronts a fight against identity, specifically the Chicano identity in How to Tame a Wild Tongue. The identity crisis, from the perspective of the author, doesn't come from an innate internal struggle, but from outside influences that cause those who identify as Chicano to question their selves.
  On page 248 Anzaldúa gives a list of her "'home' tongues" and the English she spoke. This provides a good perspective into the numerous dialects and languages that she could potentially use and encounter each day. Each language or dialect had its own purpose, it's own situation, it's own domain in which they would be used. From school and friends to home and family, each language was purposed to communicate each in their own way.
  My favorite thought that Anzaldúa wrote begins on the bottom of page 250. "Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity-- I am my language. Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself." This is the core of identity; communication plays an ample part in who we are, and who we become. Language gives a person as much identity as their ethno-cultural background, their skin color, and their socioeconomic status. Language can be the difference between success and failure, social movement and social disparity. The ability to remain confident in one's language and mode of communication translates to the ability to remain confident in one's self.