Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Connors & Kinneavy Discussion
In your reading of Kinneavy and Connors, I'd like you to make sure you understand a few key terms: "discourse," "modes" of discourse, and "aims" of discourse. If you need to, use this space to try to work through what you think these terms mean. But, mainly, I want you to address the following: What arguments are Connors and Kinneavy making about the aims and modes of discourse, and what might the benefits and drawbacks of focusing on the aims and/or modes of discourse be? Thinking about your own experience will probably be instructive here. Were you taught or are you now asked to teach the modes? If so, what's your experience been like?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I came away from this reading with more questions than answers, but here's my understanding. A "mode" refers to the structure, or in what way, the discourse presents itself, whereas the "aim" means purpose or authorial intent; and "discourse" alone is a piece of communication between an encoder and a decoder (writer/reader).
ReplyDeleteThe controversy Connors and Kinneavy seem to be addressing is between an emphasis on mode or aim in discourse, between structure and purpose. Connors shows how the modal approach has fail in her historical time line and both he and Kinneavey seem to champion teaching composition based on specific goals, which appeals to me. But if they are right, wouldn't that mean that every department should be offering their own specialized composition courses?
The Freshman Comp courses I had at the University of Houston-DT was a survey of essay types; the summary, the response paper, the analysis; the research paper, etc. But aren't these essay types modal - essentially just narrative, descriptive, and argumentative essays?
It just seems to me that if an instructor focuses exclusively on a "purpose" to commit to discourse than a student may not be able to effectively switch between occasions where it might be best to summarize, analyze, or argue. That's where I find a discussion on modes helpful.
Very well said Leif. Connors argues the question of “what makes a discourse classification useful or appealing to teachers” again, what Leif mentioned above, He does this by exploring the historical timeline in the “forms or modes” of discourse used to show us the possibility of what sorts of discourse would be most useful today. Kinneavy, argues the determination of the aims of discourse. Like a game of marbles, Discourse and its aim all depend on the shooter. As for my first year writing experiences, I don’t really remember what they entitled. I believe it was close to what Leif experienced with the summary, response, analysis and research paper. But I also remember a lot of dictation from the professor too so I’m not so sure. I do however remember that I didn’t like doing any of the work because is was very mechanical, dull and void of my voice as a writer. I don’t know if anyone else has felt the way I did.
ReplyDeleteSo this is what I’m thinking. The “aim” of discourse, is its purpose (according to the author). To persuade or inform or what-have-you. The “mode” of discourse is the vehicle on which discourse travels—taking the form of a narrative or exposition or description or argument. “Discourse” itself, is the overall message that is trying to be communicated from the writer (or speaker) to the reader (or listener). With that said…
ReplyDeleteTeaching the process of accurately constructing the proper “mode”, in order to clearly communicate a specific “aim” seems to me to be an old fashioned way of doing things, but I don’t think it is necessarily bad. In fact, I feel that it is a good starting point when learning to construct a composition. I was taught to write a “How-To” (informative) paper, by following an expository schematic, and to be honest, I don’t know if there is any other way to approach creating such a piece of writing.
One cannot clearly communicate an “aim” without first learning the “mode” that best suits it. At least initially.
That Marble analogy is pretty good stuff by the way…
This is what I understood from this reading."Discourse" is a means of communication: full text, oral or written. The modes are the manner in which they are written such as: narrative, descriptive, expository or argumentative. The "aim of discourse" is the effect the author intended his discourse to have in his readers. One argument being made was that modes were "in power" so long as they weren't "examined"for their usefulness. They influenced changes but they did not help students learn to write. With time came change and textbooks went from presenting four modes to presenting one--eventually text became what Connor's called the "thesis text." Everything circled around the thesis. Based on my learning experience, I believe it's safe to say I'm a product of the "thesis text." I agree with Richard in that we must first learn the approriate mode that suits our "aim" if our "intent" is to be received accurately. I also thought it was interesting that the modes were separated in some sense. Connors says that narration and description "seceded to creative writing courses" and argumentation to the speech department. Slowly but surely the modes are "expiring."
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand discourse is any type of communication, whether spoken or written and how the reader/writer interacts. According to Connors, discourse is “the full text, oral or written, delivered at a specific time and place or delivered at several instances (129).The modes of discourse can be described as ways of writing; sentences rhetorical, argumentative, etc. Aim of discourse is “what the average listener or reader” accomplishes from the text.
ReplyDeleteKinneavy and Connors are arguing whether the emphesis for writing should lie on emphasis or aim of discourse. Kinneavy focuses on “the determination of the aims of discourse,” arguing that one would be risking “intentional fallacy if he/she attempted to determine the aim of the work by the author’s intent. Given this, Kinneavy also states that “affective fallacy” can also be a danger if one assumes that the reaction of the reader determines the author’s purpose; this may happen if authors intentionally create distortions. Conners discusses the modes of discourse and describes how the “Freshman English Course” came about. He explains how Bain developed the four modes (narration, description, argument, and exposition) and how Genung distinguished between argumentation and persuasion (447). Connors notes that after the 1959’s the modes of writing were ignored. Connors concludes by stating that “in rhetoric texts today, the modes are still expiring. (453).”
I took the CLEP test for Freshman English, so I don’t really have any experiences to share, but I do remember in high school the papers were all analysis; “read this story and respond to the prompt-” no room for any creativity.
The marble analogy is clever Ricky. I feel that way while I'm writing the weeklies.
ReplyDeleteBTW: Does anyone know what Connors means when he refers to "bellettres" (Bottom 446)
I'm going to agree with most of you when I say that discourse can be reading, writing, or basically any type of communication. The modes are the ways in which the discourse is written, such as narrative, descriptive, persuasive, and so on. Aim of discourse would then be a metaphor to the mood of a selection, in other words, what the reader gains from the text depending on the attitude of the author.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could remember my first year of Comp. I remember struggling at first but then finding my way through the course and eventually earning an A, which got me so excited, I went to work on The Pan American newspaper as a writer. But back to the modes, I don't recall ever struggling with learning them, but as a teacher, I find myself modeling the technique of the different modes a lot with my students, as a way for them to take off on their own so to speak.
I was so happy when I saw that the Kinneavy article was only 3 pages long, and with pictures. Of course after all the re-reads and the frequent visits to Google it took me longer to understand it than it did the Elbow article. In any case, discourse is communication, through written or oral, at a specific time and place. Kinneavy states, clearly, that much. The Aims of discourse is the message the author, or speaker is trying to convey. I think. The Modes are the means, descriptive, narration, expository, argumentative, by which the author actually conveys that message. I think.
ReplyDeleteI believe the focus should be 40/60. Modes get 40 and Aim 60. I know there are draw backs to this because the Modes are the rails by which my ‘message train’ travels on and if not laid down correctly I’ll end up crashing. But I don’t sit down and think to myself, “Hey self, I’m going to write an essay to my boss demanding a raise. So I need to develop an argumentative essay. That’s my Mode, to help Aim my argument.” I sit at my desk and begin writing with my message in mind. My Aim. The Mode is somewhere in the background and comes out automatically. I was thought the Modes, but I think they were shadowed by the Aims.
In any case, I’ll read everyone else’s comments and grow from that. I’m sure on my second post I’ll be stricken with more questions.
Discourse was a term I was not comfortable with, but upon reading the articles by Kinneavy and Connors, some of the unknown was alievated. The term discourse as defined by Kinneavy is "the full text, oral or written, delivered at a specific time and place or delivered at several instances" (129). It can also vary in length. The aim of discourse is essentially the purpose for writing the particular work. The modes of discourse have undergone an evolution since their inception in the early nineteenth century. The most prevalent mode of discourse found in textbooks is that which was constructed by Fulton, and these include Definition, Classification and Division, Contrast, Comparison or Analogy, Examples, and Descriptive Exposition. For the most part, the modes of discourse should essentially suit and/or meet the needs of the writing aim (so that writing is essentially seen as meaningful) is idea that I received while reading these articles. If we expose our students the different modes of discourse, we will allow them to be successful in any writing task that they take on in the future because the task itself will not be foreign. Besides, students should receive variety in the classroom; they should not be stuck in one mode, i.e. narrative. My high school experiences were a mixed bag because not many challenging writing tasks were expected of us; however that dramatically changed in college. In my high school classroom, I make a conscious effort to expose them to the different modes of discourse because the curriculum I follow calls for it and also because I want to.
ReplyDeleteManuel makes a good point. Students need to be exposed to different modes of discourse so that they have the experience of different writing types. I wasn’t challenged to write in different modes of discourse during high school- it was mostly responses/analysis to novels we had read, meaning the structure was very set. I think all teachers should aim to do what Manuel is doing, to expose their students to different modes, which will increase their knowledge and creativity.
ReplyDeleteI remember writing my first How-to paper in fourth grade. The assignment made perfect sense to me because I was writing a recipe for pennutbutter & jelly sandwich, and I needed to structure the steps to assemble one accordingly...and I did. :)
ReplyDeleteBut modes I think are only useful perhaps into junior high. Our thought process becomes much more sophisticated by high school, and by then teaching modes of discourse becomes much too restrictive and impractical, not to mention inadequate for college level composition.
I remember that how-to paper too! Oh man. Do they still teach that method?
ReplyDeleteMs. Meisel said that she didnt struggle to learn the modes. I dont remember ever learning the modes. I know i mush have been exposed to them at some point or another but as far back as i can remember no one ever told me "Okay buddy here's how your write an expository essay." Wait i remember countless of lessons on argumentative essays. But thats the only mode i remember...maybe i should have paid more attention in school.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that most students are not being exposed to the different writing modes. As educators (public schools), we need to set aside the time to teach the different essays, so that our students won't have a difficult time of it in college.
ReplyDeleteI’m not an educator, but i agree totally with what Manuel says about setting some time to teach different forms of essays. The only problem with that (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that the school has to conform to the rules in which the state mandates, sadly making what the teacher wants to teach secondary.
ReplyDeleteI aspire to be a writing teacher and have not plunged into the school scene for the very reason that rtijerinazy mentioned: the state mandates sadly making what the teacher wants to teach secondary." I agree with Manuel in that students need to be taught the different modes but is that even possible? Who does it fall upon to do it? High school or university professors?
ReplyDeleteTo be as basic as possible since all have posted definitions of aims, modes, and discourse....discourse is basically language in any shape way or form. Mode is the structure/composition of the text. The aim is the drive behind that composition.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument is aims of discourse and the stress that should be placed on it for the readers sick. I too agree with Richard in thinking that the modes should be taught first in order to better comprehend an “aim.” In the theory classes I’ve had, there is ALWAYS confusion. Always!
My first year writing classes consisted of reading, research, and typing. I don’t ever remember doing any kind of in-class writing. It was mainly research papers. Kids have heart attacks with those these days. I know my younger siblings do.
Oh yeah... and WOW Leif....I so remember my first "How To" composition. It was second grade and it was "How to make a banana split." We got to make them in the end. mmm-mmm-mmm!! : )
ReplyDeleteMy understanding differs a bit. I'm with everyone on "discourse" as an entire text (although I think I would define text very loosely to extend beyond written words). I think "aim" is different. Kinneavy, at the very beginning, shows that neither the author nor the reader may fully describe the goal of a text because they are biased (author: the intentional fallacy; reader: the affective fallacy). "Aim" is "the effect that the discourse is oriented to achieve." So if we follow to the discussion of the various rhetoricians and their categories, we conclude that "aim" is broader, and more closely related to "mode." We see aims that incorporate informational, scientific, dialectical, pragmatic, etc. The effect of the piece is TO BE [aim goes here]. "Modes" or "modal formulae" are the categories of writing to achieve an aim. The categories here are broad: expository, narrative, persuasive, and so on. This is what I understood.
ReplyDeleteI think modes plays the biggest role in education. We see it play out in textbooks, in standardized tests, in the way teachers say, "OK, class. Today we are writing a [mode] essay." I remember having to write descriptive essays for the TAAS, and teach narrative essays for the TAKS. And, from what I hear about STARR, the modes continue. I think we are drawn to classifications, and to methods of making things easier. "Oh! This is supposed to be persuasive? I can write persuasive." Modes have rules. A narrative will not have anything that looks like exposition (written sarcastically). But thar's the rub innit? Writing well sometimes breaks the rules.
My first "How-To" paper was "The Art of the Grilled Cheese Sandwich." Though to this day, I usually burn them.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, in response to Rosa up top, and "who does it all fall on," I think teaching the different "modes" of writing, should be something that is taught far before college or high school. Or maybe even middle school for that matter. The idea (at a very basic level)behind what makes an expository piece of writing an expository piece of writing, (for example) should be touched upon during the early stages of education, and then built upon as the student grows--in age and ability. Students need to begin to slowly learn the different aspects of composition at an early age, in hopes that they may master it by the end of their educational career. Whether that be college, or beyond.
I agree with what Richard says about the different modes being taught before college or high school. The earlier the students are exposed the quicker and more efficiently they write and learn.
ReplyDeleteManuel, most students are not exposed to the different writing modes because they're too concerned with teaching the test, which is basically all the time narrative. Pretty sad. That is why I say that with high stakes testing, teachers are only going to teach what students are required to learn on TAKS/STAAR and that is a 1 page essay narrative. Can you imagine moving on to the 8th grade and all you know how to write is one page????
ReplyDeleteMs. Meisel, the tests are not the problem. When looking at the actual Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills you will notice that many of the skills are very competitive that could actually give students a good shot at a college career. Yet, since "only" some areas are tested, districts destroy education. From accountability, to PDAS for teachers, to simply money granted, it has without a doubt hindered the system. My fear is that districts will be able to make educators "teach to the test."
ReplyDeleteThese were the two articles I least wanted to read based soley of the word discourse in the titles. To me discourse implies something broken down into objective subject matter that I don't want to study, but I like how Kinneavy provides a working definition and with that I can say I have a better understanding of discourse. I also like the way he explains the aims of discourse as the intent of the writing to produce a certain effect. I could do without his charts over the classification of discourse because that just breaks down into little compartments that are too neat, but I do see relevance in tracing the norms of discourse from the claasical to the modern. As I mentioned in my weeklie, I didn't realize the four modes of writing were no longer a central focus because the last time I picked up a high school writing book several, several years ago, there they were with exposition and persuasion the primary modes as dictated by state assessments. I also know my own children currently write a lot of narration. I really enjoyed reading Conners and his summary of the contemporary "theoretical classification schemas" based on the purposes of writing. I'd like to do some further reading on the Poetic, Expressive, and Transactional forms of discourse by James Britton. His terms appeal to me I suppose since I am working toward my MFA.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the posts it is evident that there is no question about what discourse or aim is. As for the modes being taught to us, it was a bitter sweet experience. The bitterness came from the heavily “TAAS” essay format that was branded in our brains (my graduating class). The sweetness came from the different teachers in Advanced Placements classes that opened our brains to analysis and critical thinking. For the most part, all that my teachers focused on was narrative and argumentative modes. Yet, the different techniques, from analysis, to supporting ideas, to organizing my work have all helped my academic progress. The modes themselves did not make a difference in my learning, at least not in any positive way.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ivan...aren't some schools basically asking teachers to teach to the test, especially in areas such as AP? There is one way to teach my students to prepare for the AP exam and that one way is to make sure the historical analysis fits the specific criteria for the free response section. Of course there are other purposes for writing and I try to bring that in to my class but ultimately the test scores for my students are scrutinized not for their sake but for mine--to track my record. Also, considering the time restraints of the AP test, students have to create a specific product in about a forty minute period. Language and expression are constricted.
ReplyDeleteConnors & Kinneavy Discussion:
ReplyDeleteThis is how I understood the following terms as given by Kinneavy;
Discourse is the “message” that one is trying to communicate. It can be as simple as one word or hundreds of words—that is its’ full context.
Aim is the effect one expects to get from the discourse for targeted audience—that is to the intent whether it is intended “to delight or to persuade or to inform or to demonstrate the logical proof of a position.” (130)
Mode is the “form or method” in which the discourse is being delivered.
I liked Kinneavy’s illustration of the “components of the communication process as a triangle composed of an encoder (writer or speaker), a decoder (reader or listener),
Minnie, the students are definitely constricted. School are also keeping a record. Yet, I doubt that in one year a student can move from a 2 to a 4 depending on the teacher that he/she had. I do not think that a teacher can create an erudite or destroy one in such short time. What makes more sense to me is that if a teacher is more aware of the the different benefits, as we are learning here in class, that these approaches provide then the class will inevitably be more balanced and hopefully more beneficial. Yet, this view takes for granted that a teacher will have the "freedom" to choose the "approach."
ReplyDelete"I doubt that in one year a student can move from a 2 to a 4."
ReplyDeleteThe research does not support this. Plenty of evidence shows that an effective teacher can raise the reading and writing grade level by two grade levels or more. It follows that a student can move from a 2 to a 4 in a year.
It is probably true that an instructor can do very little for a student's erudition or general IQ. But we teach skills and knowledge, and that can be improved for classes and individuals.