Response to Mutnick and Moran

Reading Mutnick’s article I realized that it is the first time that I read the word “basic writers”. Personally, I don’t like this denomination. I would call them “unexperienced” more than “basic”. I guess this is part of the conventions in the field, which I do not completely manage. While reading the text, I also realized that the development of the conceptualization of learners’ errors is similar to the development it had in the foreign language education field. From being almost something that should be avoided, something bad, errors started to be seen as part of the learning process, as Shaughnessy claims, according to Mutnick. I do agree that teachers need to learn from learners’ errors since these are not random: “Shaughnessy’s approach revealed error to be logical, a sign of intention and intelligence as the writer groped for conventional forms” (p. 186). On the other hand, I am not sure if I agree with Horning, when she claims that “basic writers develop writing skills in the same way that other adults develop second language skills” (p. 187). L1 and L2 writing processes, in my opinion, are different just by the mere fact that the L2 writing process counts with the L1 not only as a resource but also as an intervening factor in the process itself. However, it is true that error research is much more developed in L2 research, and composition teachers could gain some insights from it.
Reading this article made me think that the basic paradox between the liberatory or democratic role of school. What do we want as composition teachers? Socialize our students to be neat academic writers or lead them to develop their own “voice” (and here we go to the beginning of the semester!)? Train them to be one more in the mainstream or give them tools to defy it? Well… I chose education as my path, thinking that I could change the world. Today I think that we don’t have such a power. We are one component of a huuuge system. Up to now my only stance is to offer what I have: my passion for writing and my commitment as an educator. After all, I am human! And a graduate student one! And I am still trying to go beyond conceptualizations of my own experience with writing that enable me to write in the American academy and at the same time bring my otherness into it. I am still trying to find my Anzaldúa!

Reading Moran, I thought about Shipka’s question: do we have to include technology and multimedia texts in our courses? Is it our field? Well, I do think that we need to include this things in our curriculum. I am not certain about how much importance they should have, but I discover that in my teaching, Blackboard has become a huge resource for my class. In some way I “force” my students to use it (one example: homework is in Blackboard) because I think it is a great extension of the class.
When reading the section “Applications of computer technologies for writers and teachers” I wondered if there is any research on composing online and offline in second language. As a second language speaker, the word processor is my great friend when it comes to spelling, and I feel that this affects my writing process. Up to now, I could not find any substantial body of research on this. When you type “foreign language” and “word processor” in ERIC, for example, you have only one page with search results! And most of them are articles from the end of the 1990s. I guess we got fascinated by internet and forgot that the word processor is also a tool that influences our writing process. Most of the bulk of research in FL teaching is in the use of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) since it provides the opportunity to link native speakers with FL students. Another thought: when I did the textbook research task, it called my attention how in the older book students were taught how to use the library and even jot down citations in flashcards when researching. In the same lines: shouldn’t we teach how to use word processors and libraries databases? I am still wondering.