1. Reiff states that “a genre approach to teaching writing is
careful not to treat genres as static forms or systems of classification.
Rather, students learn how to recognize genres as rhetorical responses to and
reflections of the situations in which they are used; furthermore, students
learn how to use genres to intervene in situations.” I am confused by how this
is not a system of classification and, if not a totally static form, a
malleable form often with rigid components. Perhaps I am just confused, but
could someone explain how these are different? Related to that, I feel that the
question is also how much can we evaluate writing based on the situation? As
Reiff seems to value the situation much more than the writing itself.
2. What Yancey says about portfolios being a display of growth
interests me. I feel like it should show growth, but also perhaps that it
should show off the best of what you’ve got. So I have to ask: should
portfolios for students be based on growth or by skill? Not that the two are
mutually exclusive, but I feel like there may be different understandings of
the purpose of the portfolio and wanted to ask, which do you value more?
Robert you are not the only one confused by Rieff, so am I.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Yancey, I am understanding Yancey referencing the growth of a writer's portfolio as an example of writing process. By displaying earlier writings in a portfolio audience members can see how participation in the writing process is working. I am setting up my e-portfolio in this way. I want to be transparent with students that process, even writing process is important and worthy. I think it is also a way to hit home the importance of revision.