Articles Review on Teaching

Technology transforms writing and the teaching of writing

The article on Technology Transforms Writing and the Teaching of Writing by Wendy Leibowitz is a type of repost that discusses the possibilities and perils of writing in the digital age. It focuses on the effects of pervasive emails and word processing on college students writing. She presents her conversations with professors about approaches and attitude they have on it. Some of them require students to use digital technology in their writing process; some propose reducing screen time, some advocate for correlating between online writing and reading while others advocate for diminished critical thinking and writing skills. The author quotes April Bernards perspective of Web writing as adjunct to traditional forms and Robert Coovers view that its a fundamental element of literacy and uses them to compare it with professors perspective. The professors see themselves as the source of new ideas and tactile in advocating for effective strategies for using the newest technologies to improve writing instruction.

The article is resourceful as Leibowitzs has conducted deep rooted interviews that included eleven professors. Although the article does not establish a comprehensive research, it offers an informative approaches on how professors teach writing has evolved in the digital age. She uses a straightforward prose to present the article to a general audience. It remains to be established how the lecturer interviewed has changed their teaching in addressing texting and social media which has become a common feature in students' lives.

Review of disruptive sexual voices in English 101 by Lizbeth Bryant

The Disruptive Sexual Voices in English 101, is an article by teacher Lizbeth Bryant who recounts her experience with students on sexual comments in a semester which she unsuccessfully tried to end. For this reason, she conducted research on why puns and innuendos persisted by interviewing them. In her research, she found that she had erred in defining students voices as sexual and inappropriate as she discovered that their voices solely relied on her perspective. For this reason, Bryant shifted her focus to studying the students voices interactions which allowed them to develop instead of suppressing them. The article concludes with Bryant focusing on how to transform the conflicts into teaching moments by offering various resources for an active classroom conversations about voice.

The article presents a new perspective on how academic jargon invites bias on the teaching staff. It is after changing the perspective she understands the real meaning which brings a new challenge to scholars on the effect of a biased viewpoint. The article also challenges previous scholars such as Kay Halasek and Mary Louise Pratt on their theories, but she leaves many questions unanswered on performative and pre-formative pedagogy related to students answer-ability. Additionally, the article reveals that Bryant had a discussion with only two female student which challenges the credibility of the presented data on representativeness and conclusiveness. She does not also offer her perspective on the issues she addressed making the reader unsure of her perspective on her voice. The article is useful in understanding the jargon of one academic field in producing more intelligible words and phrases. The article also presents new areas in this idea relating to risks involved in making conclusive judgments and stereotypes among scholarship.