Yancey spends a lot of time discussing new methods of
writing in new mediums as being akin to old methods. She discussed on page 314
that students discuss and brainstorm about what writing “tasks ‘counts’ as
writing and why”. She never really states what types of writing these students
are discussing. My assumption is that
they are talking about, academic papers versus informal narratives,
power-points versus video, etc. What is your take on this? And why do you think
so? Do you think that students really think outside of the box like this? Or do
they have to be prodded and encouraged to think critically and conceptionally
about the act of writing on a larger scale?
Bitzer describes “rhetorical situation” as discourse
that “occurs in a ‘context of situation’ (4) and is meant to persuade or
promote positive change (6). He never
frames rhetorical situation as an argument yet my perception is that it is
similar to how we would teach crafting an argument to students. Is my
perception right, if not how does it differ from the standard argument model?
Hola Kristy,
ReplyDeleteSo, to tackle the first part, I think we had a different reading on Yancey's essay. I read it in the way that students are becoming more versed in new mediums like blogs and social media and whatnot-- new technology that we are trying to incorporate into the classrooms today. And I still believe that students need to be taught to think critically. They may be experts at navigating and using twitter, but are they aware of the reasons they do it and why they do it and all that jazz.
In regards to Bitzer's rhetorical situation, he doesn't frame it as an argument because not everything that is rhetorical is an argument. Just because someone is trying to communicate a point or relay a message doesn't necessarily mean they are "arguing" something in its simplistic definition. I believe that it can encompass the argument model, definitely, but that is only one aspect of rhetoric.