I found Vandenburg’s article to be slightly overwhelming at first glance, and when reading the headlines of the different “chapters”, I was not sure how the author was going to relate them to one another. But as I actually began reading, I saw that Vandenburg was trying to explain the main ideas of each f the themes, which were audience, coherence, collaboration, form/structure, freshman English, process, revision, rhetoric, and style.
One topic that was focused on in this article that I had not necessarily thought about previously was collaboration. Here Vandenburg states, “Collaboration refers not to a unified object but rather to a variety of pedagogies and practices, each grounded in somewhat different, and often conflicting, epistemological and ontomological assumptions.” This definition at first threw me for a loop, but as the author’s explanation continued, it became very clear. By including the history of collaboration, Vandenburg simply states that the assumptions of what collaboration really is can seem somewhat contradictory, and it cannot be defined in any simple terms. Some believe writing is an individually accomplished task, while others believe it is completed by the collaboration involved in the said writer learning to read and write the words he uses.
I, too, found myself unsure of the author's intent initially. I found the article to be somewhat glossary-like and somewhat dense to read, but the overall application and related content allowed for easier understanding. I appreciate your insight with regard to the author's explication of "collaboration," and you present some ideas that I hadn't previously considered. Your concise explanation of what collaboration is allows for further understanding. I was also surprised by some of the definitions, but I think that as the articles progressed the ideas became clear. Do you think that you will apply these themes to further work and composition? How applicable do you think this article is in terms of our class content, etc.?
ReplyDelete