Student Writing – Lillis

The aspect of desire she explored was other than what I had imagined. 


What we want is closely aligned to what we feel are the possibilities and potentialities afforded by the context of our lives. 


Desire for educational often deferred, it is shaped in terms of other desires. The dream of salvation through romance becomes transformed into the dream of salvation through education. 


Feminist critique of essayist literacy – coded as binary

  • logic over emotion
  • academic truth over personal experience
  • linearity of circularity
  • explicitness over evocation
  • closing down of possible meanings as opposed to opening up
  • certainty over uncertainty
  • formality over informality


Writing viewed from an either/or perspective. Unmarked form – the norm. 

addressivity – who am I writing to and is there anybody in this text. Essay as more then merely ‘rat-trapping’ what the lecturere has said: ventriloquating. 

Suggests 4 types of dialogue, to meet the demands and desires of 

  • tutor-directive dialogue aimed at talking the student-writer into essayist literacy practice
  • collaborative dialogue aimed at populating the student-writers text with her own intentions
  • tutor-directive dialogue aimed at making language visible
  • dialogue which facilitates student talkback as part of a long conversation

I must say that I don’t find Lillis style of writing easy. I don’t find the text engaging or compelling though I like what she writes about and what she has to say – how she writes about it in terms of content (it is her style that seems to jar) 

I like the way she reference’s text. She seems to have a reader in mind – so often she quotes names, year as is standard – but she also quotes the chapter. 

The discussion really opens up the extent to which it is almost impossible to separate content from construct in essay writing. The dangers of an abstract approach. What I write is caught up with how I write. The cultural style of different disciplines, but also the connection between self, action, text – meaning. 

I am nervous and excited about research – postDoc. 

Table 7.1 on page 165 is also very interesting. 

  • Dominant       è  resistant   

  • Skills  è creative expression  è socialisation (teaching as implicit induction) è socialisation (teaching as explicit induction)  è academic literacies

  • HE as homogeneous: reproduce dominant discourses  è HE as heterogeneous make visible, challenge, play with (& subvert) dominant discourses 
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s