help needed - and quickly!
i have a two-page assignment due this evening which needs to be peer-reviewed. it is an abstract, a summary and a reaction to an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education. i only need someone to read it over and give me some feedback - nothing major. shouldn't take too long, and you need not be a library student or librarian.
Hart, Melissa. (2007). Writing for the Moon and Stars. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 (32), 5.
Abstract: This article examines the author’s relationship with and use of Natalie Goldberg’s Writing Down the Bones, which she first used in college. Now teaching, the author has encountered resistance to the book, which she asserts stems from students’ feelings it is too self-indulgent and condones bad writing. After reexamining it, and other similar, though more recent texts, the author concludes that there is room for both types of texts in the classroom.
Summary: This article examines the author’s relationship with and use of Natalie Goldberg’s Writing Down the Bones, which she first used in college. She has used the book over the last 20 years for practical advice, to soften the blow of rejection and to remind her of the real reason she writes - for the love of writing, not for external recognition. However, when she recently used the book in a class on magazine writing she was teaching, she was surprised at the reaction it got from her students: they did not like it, and did not find it helpful. Frequent complaints were that it was too self-indulgent, not practical enough, and sometimes just too “sweet.” The author examines other, more recent texts, to see why those work for students and Bones doesn’t. The main suggestion of Goldberg’s she keeps coming back to is daily 10-minute writing exercises, and how they were helpful. After a consultation with a student, in which it is clear that part of Goldberg’s book got through to him, the author determines that Goldberg’s book is still worth using, but would be better used in conjunction with the other texts she examined, rather than used alone.
Reaction: I think Hart raises an important issue for higher education in general, and the academic library. Her writing classes focus on getting students to write frequently, spontaneously and critically, and then to revise what they have written, and to critique others’ writing. I think this is a crucial issue for higher education, in a time when so many students turn in a first draft of a paper as a final draft. Most critical writing intensive classes do not feature critique as part of the major work of the class, at either the high school or college level. Consequently, most students arrive at college with little experience of revising their writing substantially. Their only feedback is from teachers and professors, most of which is not taken into account for another draft of the work. The one exception, in my experience, to this model is in creative writing classes. Most colleges don’t emphasize it, and in fact some colleges only offer one creative writing class every fourth semester. Creative writing may be seen as less important than critical writing, but the skills learned through creative writing, especially revising, editing and critiquing, are applicable to critical writing.
The task of academic libraries is usually assumed to be helping students find and access relevant, high-quality information. What is then done with that information is not usually a concern, but it should be. Libraries, as much as other departments on campus, should be concerned with the writing skills of students. While it may not be their direct role to facilitate the growth of students’ writing abilities, they should be a part of that discussion. The classroom and the writing center may have a more direct role in supporting growth of writing skills and habits, but the library should be still be involved with the issue and plans for changes and improvement on campus. Libraries help educate students, which includes fostering the writing skills applied to the information found and accessed from the library.
thanks in advance to the person who gets me out of a bind.
Hart, Melissa. (2007). Writing for the Moon and Stars. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 (32), 5.
Abstract: This article examines the author’s relationship with and use of Natalie Goldberg’s Writing Down the Bones, which she first used in college. Now teaching, the author has encountered resistance to the book, which she asserts stems from students’ feelings it is too self-indulgent and condones bad writing. After reexamining it, and other similar, though more recent texts, the author concludes that there is room for both types of texts in the classroom.
Summary: This article examines the author’s relationship with and use of Natalie Goldberg’s Writing Down the Bones, which she first used in college. She has used the book over the last 20 years for practical advice, to soften the blow of rejection and to remind her of the real reason she writes - for the love of writing, not for external recognition. However, when she recently used the book in a class on magazine writing she was teaching, she was surprised at the reaction it got from her students: they did not like it, and did not find it helpful. Frequent complaints were that it was too self-indulgent, not practical enough, and sometimes just too “sweet.” The author examines other, more recent texts, to see why those work for students and Bones doesn’t. The main suggestion of Goldberg’s she keeps coming back to is daily 10-minute writing exercises, and how they were helpful. After a consultation with a student, in which it is clear that part of Goldberg’s book got through to him, the author determines that Goldberg’s book is still worth using, but would be better used in conjunction with the other texts she examined, rather than used alone.
Reaction: I think Hart raises an important issue for higher education in general, and the academic library. Her writing classes focus on getting students to write frequently, spontaneously and critically, and then to revise what they have written, and to critique others’ writing. I think this is a crucial issue for higher education, in a time when so many students turn in a first draft of a paper as a final draft. Most critical writing intensive classes do not feature critique as part of the major work of the class, at either the high school or college level. Consequently, most students arrive at college with little experience of revising their writing substantially. Their only feedback is from teachers and professors, most of which is not taken into account for another draft of the work. The one exception, in my experience, to this model is in creative writing classes. Most colleges don’t emphasize it, and in fact some colleges only offer one creative writing class every fourth semester. Creative writing may be seen as less important than critical writing, but the skills learned through creative writing, especially revising, editing and critiquing, are applicable to critical writing.
The task of academic libraries is usually assumed to be helping students find and access relevant, high-quality information. What is then done with that information is not usually a concern, but it should be. Libraries, as much as other departments on campus, should be concerned with the writing skills of students. While it may not be their direct role to facilitate the growth of students’ writing abilities, they should be a part of that discussion. The classroom and the writing center may have a more direct role in supporting growth of writing skills and habits, but the library should be still be involved with the issue and plans for changes and improvement on campus. Libraries help educate students, which includes fostering the writing skills applied to the information found and accessed from the library.
thanks in advance to the person who gets me out of a bind.