4/5 (Thaiss/Zawacki)

Today's reading: Thaiss/Zawacki's Engaged Writers/Dynamic Disciplines. I am looking over their Introductory chapter, in which they attempt to lay out a definition or explanation of academic writing.

There are a few nice disclaimer statements:

1. "Academic writing" is one of those terms that is often invoked, usually solemnly, as if everyone agreed on its meaning, and so is used imprecisely yet almost always for what the user regards as a precise purpose; e.g., commonly by teachers in explaining what they want from students. 
   
2. "There are exceptions to almost every principle an analyst can identify as a characteristic of academic writing." (5)

T/Z offer the following "characteristics" of academic writing:

1. Clear evidence in writing that the writer(s) have been persistent, open-minded, and disciplined in study. 
   
2. The dominance of reason over emotion or sensual perception. 
   
3. An imagine reader who is coolly rational, reading for information, and intending to formulate a response. (5-7)
   

Okay, so I've finished reading the first chapter of T/Z. It looks like an incredibly interesting study and I hope to be able to keep reading it, but there was not too much else of interest to my project there. 

4/3

One of the issues that came up with my article for CE was defining academic discourse. Here are the passages worth noting:

1. From Schilb's letter:

Their reviews lead me to believe, specifically, that there needs to be more in the essay about (1) the nature and definition of academic literacy in general...

2. From Reviewer #1:

First, academic literacy is not very well defined. The example used (the one Tony has such trouble with) is the compare and contrast essay, and this suggests a kind of monolithic definition of academic writing that appears to ignore the broad range of writing students are asked to do in college as well as the shift from the traditional essay-based writing to writing-as-rhetorical action that characterizes many college classrooms. I admit that at many institutions where traditional and conservative approaches to writing instruction still hold sway, this essay may be an eye-opening piece, asking us to rethink approaches toward curricula for adult students like Tony (and, I would argue, for all students). But for most CE readers, I think the lack of discussion surrounding the characteristics of academic literacy will be a problem.

3. Reviewer #2 did not speak specifically to the issue of academic discourse. But, wow, after rereading R2's comments, I should consult them more carefully. R2 is RIGHT on in so many counts, I need to heed her wisdom more.

In any event, this afternoon, I'm just looking at the issue of academic discourse. R1 used my undertheorizing of academic discourse as grounds for disqualification. Schilb just wants me to flesh it out a bit more. 

It seems to me that, aside from the research that I'm doing, there is something more to say, two things, actually:

1. Those who teach adult students at schools like GSC, for example, may have among the most narrow definitions of academic writing. Given the fact that many such instructors are hired on an ad-hoc basis and may be distant from current academic conversations within their disciplines, their sense of what counts as academic might be the most conservative.
   
2. Additionally, many programs at schools like GSC institute courses that all students must take. I'm thinking of the "critical thinking" course, for example, where they do a sort of "immersion" in academic writing--or traditional forms of it. There is a hyper-awareness or concern, it would seem, about moving students back into academic forms of discourse at a school like GSC, given their assumed distance from the classroom. In the process, very traditional notions about academic writing may be most emphasized. (think of the assignments in John Beech's critical thinking course).