Out of the choices we had to read for today, I liked Yancey’s piece the best. To begin, in Yancey’s Theory, Practice, and the Bridge between the Methods Course and Reflective Rhetoric I liked the idea she had of “tasks that resemble ‘real’ teaching . . . that to complete them one acts as (in the process of becoming) a teacher” (235). What came to my mind after reading that is students having to teach themselves a lesson then complete the homework assigned. I did this for a grammar class I was unable to attend, due to a storm that left me stuck in another state, and I was really surprised that I understood and did well on the homework. In a way, it can also be compared to the discussion lead/the written portion Dr. Zamora has us do. In addition, like Yancey mentioned this also made me think of collaboration. For example, one student may understand a lesson and explains it to another student. Furthermore while reading Yancey’s article, I felt like some of the information or suggestions she presented my teachers already do, and I also recalled other readings from last semester. I appreciated the fact she also liked the idea of students taking peers work home like Jaxon.

Continuing in Historical Review: Issues in Rhetorical Invention in Janice Lauer’s Invention in Rhetoric and Composition, I agree with a statement Carter makes. “Carter maintained that later, especially in the Roman period, the development of status, identifying the point at issue, offered a way for the rhetor to gain some control over the moment” (14). I think this statement can be applied to now, and it automatically took me back to my debate class. In order to have a strong argument, everything you said should have been supported by experts. If it did, not only did you but the audience felt like your argument was more valid. In my class, our opinion alone was not good enough because we did not have status or expertise. Sometimes, expertise leads to status. Although I think Historical Review was difficult to read, I think some of the people mentioned had really interesting things to say.

The first reading Grounded Theory a Critical Research Methodology by Joyce Magnotto Neff was okay. What I did like about it is the fact it bought up the idea of integration again and it also made me think about Predictor Variables the Future of Composition Research right from the beginning. The statement “What we have not done as prolifically or as well is to account for the methods we use to generate our predictions and reach our conclusions” made me think about the word process (Neff 124). Johanek talks about process in Predictor Variables. Furthermore, I also liked the idea of “conferring with others about the ‘fit’ of my emerging findings” (Neff 130). Sometimes, we learn more from collaboration, and a researcher will feel more confident about his/her results. Lastly, the most important point I think this article highlighted and what I am beginning to realize is you “must learn to live without closure” (Neff 126). Dr. Zamora mentioned this in one of our classroom discussions when she said things are not black and white, and I just shared a statement recently on Facebook that is very similar.

The next article The Process Approach to Writing Instruction Examining Its Effectiveness by Ruie J. Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt was just another discussion we had in class. Based off of our discussion, I think a lot of us will agree with Brozick

the writing process is much more dynamic and is contingent upon numerous variables and influences such as purpose, audience, type of writing, and the writer’s personality type. (qtd. in Pritchard and Honeycutt 277)

I can mention several experiences in which this statement has proven itself to be true. In addition, I also liked Peter Elbow’s contribution because it took me back to my senior year of college and reminded me of a comment a teacher made to me.