Sorry for delay 😅 . Let me know if you need anything edit
In this essay, Branson begins with a somewhat anecdotal tone. However, it immerses us in
a reflection on the educational structure and its formative function. From the first paragraph begins
by pointing out the formative dynamics through recent history, for example, says: "The reason for
this, I think, is because of a particular bad idea about writing and writing, one that has surprisingly
not been up in the past 40 years: that first-year writing is a basic course in language, grammar, and
syntax that prepares students for something called academic writing in the more "legitimate"
courses in the university; and that its teachers consists primarily of error-correctors and behaviormodifiers armed with red pens and elbow patches". (Branson, 2019). In this section, the premise
is presented. Said premise leaves established the critic to the archaic methodology that prevails to
today, which does not finish orienting the student to enter the academic writing. But it puts him in
a straitjacket that only confuses him and away from the script exercise.
When evaluating writing from the position in which people relate to it, it comes to have a
series of nuances that determine this link between people and literature. That, in the end, is
influenced by social class, gender or academic degree. Added to this Branson puts on the table a
fundamental problem in writing, ranging from the aesthetic sense to the proper understanding of
the use of language. In the last 100 years, sympathy has prevailed over continuous correction as a
method of training for language and efficiency as the flag of consolidated writing. However,
Branson as mentioned in his premise that academic writing has been oriented to a corrective sense
that moves writing away from the critical knowledge that transforms it. Writing more linked to the
literary understanding of what constitutes academic writing. Within this criticism that Branson
proposes, he leaves us a postulate about errors in writing, as he points out that they are not
necessarily the reflection of a deficiency in the writing process but the construction of learning
through the mistakes themselves.
Branson, based on academics like Kahn and Lunsford, who had a famous study called
"freshman composition" provides us data about the historical process of writing in the US in the
last century, for example, he says: "As Seth Kahn has shown in this collection, researchers have
known since the 1970s that teaching grammar and mechanics do not improve student writing.
Andrea Lunsford and Karen Lunsford even recreated a famous study of errors in Freshman
Composition essays and found that "the rate of student error is not increasing precipitously, but it
has been stable for nearly 100 years." What they mean is that errors in writing are a fact of life.
"(Branson, 2019). In this way, he moves forward with his topic, but, most importantly, it is its
reflective nature that lets us see the objectives of writing for the production of accurate tests
without being beautiful or appropriately structured. Branson gives us revealing though not
conclusive data since he only briefly mentions the characteristics of the problem without an
appropriate quotation to reinforce the argument. Everything seems to be connected with the sense
of the essay; perhaps one of the few deficiencies is the bibliographic support to sustain the ideas
the only problem. For instance, it does not feel as if, at times, the quotes are introduced with
sufficient context, but it can still be deduced from the readings.
It would be necessary that within all these revealing data and post transformations that go
to the benefit of the exercise of writing. There would also be scientific support to support
criticism and proposals to transform the meaning of academic writing. The connection between
the ideas on the subject is connected, only that they lack validity when just ide...