I agree fundamentally with their general thesis. Effective writing is all about "argument" and "joining the conversation." Their book gives writers the "moves" they need to do so. However, what the lecture made me realize was that their general thesis is nothing new. Argument had been the fundament of academic writing since Aristotle. What is effective in their book is their identification of the templates and phrasings that typical academic writers use to engage in such writing activities. Also, to some degree, they were not talking to their audience. Referring to "your students" in the third person was unintentionally demeaning to both the students, who made up the vast majority of the audience, and the few writing instructors who were present. Good writers don't refer to their main audience in the third person. Also, writing teachers at Ohio Wesleyan haven't used the "five-paragraph essay" for a decade or more. Implying that we use outmoded techniques suggests that Graff and Birkenstein didn't evaluate that part of their audience very well. After all, we invited them to OWU because many of us are using their book. We must agree with their basic principles or we wouldn't have done so.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Response to Graff and Birkenstein
By Friday, April 6, blog a paragraph responding to Graff and Birkenstein's lecture. If you didn't attend (ahem), then you'll have to interview a class member and get his or her reaction. To show my good faith on this blog assignment, I am blogging my own paragraph below:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In Graff and Birkenstein’s presentation, they followed very closely to what was written in their book. In the presentation they emphasized how important it is to create a well thought out argument with proper citations. Their example (the Sopranos) of how citations can help your argument appear more respectable was well thought out like the rest of their presentation and helpful. But, I felt that what they were presenting was material we had already learned. Also, I felt that they underestimated what we had already learned from their book, like how there are templates and organizational tips in the book. The presentation could have been more interesting if they came to teach material that was not previously taught in their book.
ReplyDeleteThe Graff and Birkestein Lecture was an okay lecture but I did not really learn anything new or insightful as they rehashed what was already in their book. Personally I found Graff and Birkenstein to be more engaging in their written book talking to me more personally than as an object of study in their spoken lecture. They talked about how you should focus on argument which was a good reminder for the upcoming research paper as I had not given it much thought in regards to my topic. I found their reinforcement on argument as necessary for any paper helpful because it gives my writing a purpose instead of just listing cited facts. But other than that the lecture seemed to have little cohesion, at the beginning it was just talking and then during the second half it was going over the handouts which were a repeat of the beginning of the semester when we closely examined They Say I Say. Also listening Graff and Birkenstein address me and most of the student audience as seemingly not existing was annoying. They constantly seemed to be talking to professors and high up administrators not students who are following their methods. They did not properly address their audience and thus the students including myself were being talked down to which was bothersome. Also frustrating was Graff’s constant need to pause and say “um” when he did not know what to say to next. I would conclude they are better writers in their They Say I Say book then they are speakers.
ReplyDeleteI found Graff and Birkenstein’s lecture to lack meaning, excitement and intrigue. Throughout the lecture I was bored by their drab style of speaking and I learned very little from their lecture. All that they talked to us was from their book and I already had a good grasp of that material. That being said, it was very nice of them to give a lecture on their book. Graff and Birkenstein’s lecture was very boring, but it was also insulting. Graff and Birkenstein had a condescending tone to their lecture and I felt like my day would have been better without that insulting tone. While they were condescending, they at least seemed to know what they were talking about, even if it was just a repeat of the material from their book. All in all, Graff and Birkenstein’s lecture was mediocre and nothing new was learned from it.
ReplyDeleteThe important aspect of writing presented by Graff and Birkenstein was to create arguments and dialogue. Including controversy in writing makes it more intriguing as well as presents the arguments of both the confirmation and refutation sides of the topic. Creating an argument also gives the importance of what you are writing about, as in the "so what?" factor of the paper. Graff and Birkenstein also stressed implementing dialogue into the arguments. Using dialogue is a more interesting way to present the sides of each argument than just listing what each side believes. The dialogue will also make it clear with who says what. I agree with others who have mentioned that the lecture was boring and did not provide new information from what was already in the book.
ReplyDeletefollowing suit with the rest of the responses i found it very boring, and unhelpful. what they wrote about in their book was great! unfortunately for them as presenters I didn't find the books information helpful enough to be regurgitated over, and over in an almost offensive manner. That being said there are things in their book that I found helpful, and insightful.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument of the presentation by Graff and Birkenstien was to, intact, make arguments. They stressed the importance of using dialogue. It makes your writing more interesting and gives it clear proof of your argument. We hear the same thing in class every day, so this information was not that helpful. It was boring and restated what was in the book. The book is helpful, but hearing the same thing in a lecture was useless.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone already mentioned, that was a terribly dull lecture. I came into the lecture thinking Graff and Birkenstein would know how to interact with an audience better. Unfortunately, Graff stared at his paper nearly the entire time while saying "uh" and "um" every thirty seconds. Birkenstein wasn't much better with her monotone voice presenting the different "moves" one could make. I've learned more about arguing and downshifting from your previous lectures than I did when Graff and Birkenstein spoke.
ReplyDeleteAt the lecture Graff and Birkenstein empasized using arguments to make your point, as well as the importance of the phrase "They say, I say". This phrase means to not only make your arguments in an essay but to also present and refute others arguments using a variety of templates (which we went over at the lecture). Unfortunately, despite all the knowledge and information presented to us I was very bored at the lecture because Graff and Birkenstein didn't really seem to know how to keep everyones attention, and keep them excited about their topic.
ReplyDeleteThe Graff and Birkenstein lecture appears to be a “canned” speech. They seemed to be pitching their book to the audience. As others have stated, Ohio Wesleyan already widely uses the book. Furthermore, as a school that uses the book, Graff and Birkenstein should relize that students and teachers can read the book themselves and do not need a summary of its main points. They did not adapt their lecture to the audience, and it showed. I know from personal experience that “um’s” signify an ill-prepared speech or a speech gone wrong. If they had adjusted the speech to the audience, the impact would have been much better. They could have elaborated on what makes a good paper versus a bad one and why their “moves” work. This is what I have concluded from everyone’s blogs and reactions in class.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Graff and Birkenstein, I found their lecture incredibly boring. To be honest, I found it extremely hard to concentrate since they hardly looked up while speaking. They were just reading something out, hardly making eye contact or grabbing the audience’s attention. Their books are great and the one we currently use is very well written since it is written to be read by students like us but I did not find them to be the best orators. I advocate their approach to writing that is the “argument” approach. But really, I wish they had done a better job at their lecture.
ReplyDeleteThe lecture with Graff and Birkenstein was informative and persuasive, but I found their tone and presentation boring. They’re both teachers but don’t give the best speeches. Graff especially isn’t a great speaker and didn’t refer to the hand out as much as Birkenstein. The handout only addressed integrating logos into the paper, while their talk included first person and pathos. I would have liked to see them talk more personally about the way OWU teaches, considering they worked closely with one of its teachers.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I did not attend the Graff and Birkenstein lecture because of work, I heard it was not the greatest of lectures. The information presented in the lecture was thought to be nothing more than their book being pitched, which is rather ironic since most of the student there have read the book. For the sounds of it, I didn't miss much except the opportunity to put the face to the name of the authors who wrote my handy little book. Oh well.
ReplyDelete