Talk:Writing about Writing


 * As I continue to fill out my article, I've recently been working on expanding the "criticism" section per a suggestion from our class ambassador. I also fix minor Wikipedia-form related issues she pointed out to me. I've referenced 2 more sources since my initial development, but plan on referencing at least 3 more:

Bcgelms (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bird, Barbara. "Meaning-Making Concepts: Basic Writer’s Access to Verbal Culture"
 * Wardle, Elizabeth. "Continuing the Dialogue: Follow-up Comments on "Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions"
 * Charlton, Jonikka. "Seeing is Believing: Writing Studies with 'Basic Writing' Students"

My article is still a work in progress. Mainly I'm hoping to expand on the benefits and pitfalls, but I haven't finished reading all of my source material so hopefully some new points will emerge that I can incorporate.

So far, I've consulted an article/case study by Douglas Down and Elizabeth Wardle that is recognized as being the "birth of WAW." I've also consulted the foremost textbook on WAW, written by the same scholars.

I currently have 5 more sources I am still working through:
 * Bird, Barbara. "Meaning-Making Concepts: Basic Writer’s Access to Verbal Culture"
 * Carter, Shannon. "Writing About Writing in Basic Writing: A Teacher/Researcher/Activist Narrative"
 * Charlton, Jonikka. "Seeing is Believing: Writing Studies with 'Basic Writing' Students"
 * Kutney, Joshua. "Will Writing Awareness Transfer to Writing Performance? Response to Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle, 'Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions'"
 * Wardle, Elizabeth. "Continuing the Dialogue: Follow-up Comments on "Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions"

Bcgelms (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong achievement, possible bias in Reception section
I applaud this article for bringing out this important current movement in composition pedagogy for the benefit of WP's readers. I might suggest also that the section "Reception" might be revised or omitted since it seems to present a favorably biased perspective on the book that contrasts with the neutral presentation elsewhere. I don't think its omission would harm the article, as the critical discussion has brought out positive characterizations of the book's reception in a more balanced way.

—Webster Newbold (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing about Writing, 2nd edition
Will there be any revisions to this page, to include the recent 2nd edition of the WAW reader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.137.74 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)