The reading summary is done by: Krystal Prayer (ENGL300-1) and Benjamin Unfried (ENGL300-2)
Due by class time on: Monday, January 24th, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Wednesday, January 26th, 2011
The text you need to read is here.
____________________________________________________
by Krystal Prayer:
As I read the introduction to the article Engfish, I was a little confused as to what the article was talking about. As I continued to read, the lesson that the article was trying to get across made more sense. Looking back on different papers that I have written, most of my papers were very robotic and used words that I wouldn't use in everyday conversation. One of my teachers called it five dollar words to make the teacher happy. I personally don't like using "big" words. Sometimes pleasing your teacher can leave your intended audience confused because they might not know what your talking about. In some cases, writers use the wrong big word and they weren't trying to use it in that form. Another point that I agreed with in the article is the lost of life in an "Engfish" paper. When a writer throws different "big" words in a paper, it starts to sound mechanical. As a reader, I do not want to feel like the author is spitting pointless facts at me that I am probably going to forget as soon as I get done reading the paper. Keeping a reader's interest is one of the most important aspects of writing. I like how the article talked about life in a paper. When I write about a particular subject, I make sure it is about something that I enjoy. In my English 102 class, we had to write an research paper on any topic of our choice. I chose sex and porn because I know a lot about the subject and I enjoy talking about sex. It is something that I am passionate about and will be my career in the future. The example that the author gave about the third grader was very interesting. I read a story that my little brother wrote and everything in it sound exciting and lively. He gave every detail that he could about his characters and the scenery. Reading his story, you could tell how excited he was to write it. I think college students should tap into their inner third grader and get back to writing what is natural to them. I think that our teachers would be more open to actually paying attention to what is written instead of making grammar corrections.
___________________________________________________________
by Benjamin Unfried:
The first time I read this article I was confused as to what it was saying and what I should be getting out of this article from reading it. After reading it a couple times I caught on to it. I understand college students writing in that way because I am a college student as well.....obviously, I have written papers like that several times, writing more like how I think my teacher would have wanted me to write it by using bigger words that would not normally use on my own. Using bigger more fancier sounding words does sound better when used the right way and looks better as well, but it doesn't really mean anything to the student because it's not actually them. The example the article used with the third grader was a good one because it was completely natural to him in the way that he wrote it. I feel that if I and other students could learn to write more like that it would be much more beneficial to getting a good English education.
Krystal Prayer summary was very interesting. I thought that she talked about what she thought about the passage and she lost sight about what the original topic was about. It would be great as a comment because it was her opinion about the story. Benjamin Unfried summary was more of his opinion too. I didn’t even know what the story was about. All I knew about was an example the article used that was about a third grader.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Unfried's article expresses the idea of how college students tend to rely on pretentious word choice to ultimately sound smarter. The third grader example is an excellent example of being truthful in saying what one know rather than saying what sounds academically correct. Benjamin and Krystal need to try to break down this idea with more examples to lengthen their summaries. Overall, good interpretations but too much subjectivity. Try to concentrate on content to give the reader a better understanding of the article itself.
ReplyDeleteThe Article, Engfish, by Ken Macrorie is insightful. Macrorie, throughout his article, demonstrates how lifeless college student's writing becomes. There is no passion, nor does their writing make sense because they become trained to write like texts book which are passion-less.
ReplyDeleteMacrorie article was fun to read. As a writer, especially when I am typing an essay, I try to write as concise and professional as possible. I never realized that my writing was so dead. This article has definitely made me want to better my writing, so that teachers can appreciate it, and so they aren't bored when they're reading my essays.
Given the fact that Krystal Prayer and Benjamin Unfried were the first people to do this assignment and did not have any other blogs to use as an example, they did not do too badly. They expressed their opinions about the subject clearly and their use of personal experience was interesting. However, they did not write much about the article itself. Their blogs were more like personal reflections than summaries of the article. I didn't get much of a sense of what the article was really about or what the author had to say. As personal reflections they were good, but as summaries, they could use some revising.
ReplyDeleteMacrorie's article was very original. I had never thought about the idea of our reading actually degressing in creativity and excitement prior to reading this. Macrorie made me realize that the more complex words you use doesn't necessarily make a more colorful paper, but what really adds personality to a paper is puting emotion into it and relating it in significant ways to other things. It's almost as though while teachers were trying to make our reading formal and grammatically correct, we lost the care-free ability to write about things as we feel them.
ReplyDeleteKen Macrorie's article titled, "Engfish", was an interesting take on young adult writing. It seems the author is saying that as we age and further our education a particular part of our writing is gone. Our writing becomes lifeless and more professional. There is some truth to this but I have to argue that our way of expression may just become more refined. It is not lost. We still are as expressive as we always have been, just in a different form. Granted when writing something like a report or legal document you have no choice but to be dry and to the point. I think there is a place for formal writing and there is a place for informal. We just happen to use formal writing more than any other, however I do not think this limits our creativity. I think someone can be just as lively in their writings and be formal, it is just finding a balance. Which is something I know I need to work on in my writing. It seems that when I focus on concept I forget the structure and the same goes for when I focus on structure (forgetting concept). I think it is important to sound like you know what you are talking about in your writing; so weather that be to the point, more direct style or expansive " big words" style, knowing what you are talking about and using words as effectively as you can is the main issue.
ReplyDeleteIn his article "Engfish" Ken Macrorie’s account of the state of writing in our educational system is as funny as it is accurate. Mr Unfried admits in his blog that he has written several papers in the Engfish style. I too have written this way, in fact most of what I have written in my educational career has been written this way. I am not sure I am free of it yet but the theme of several of my classes so far has been clear and concise writing. The last line of the article is an excellent example of good writing.
ReplyDelete“In this empty circle teacher and student wander around boring each other. But there is a way out.”
Not only does Macrorie get the point across without the use of any Engfish but he also gives hope of finding a solution to our writing woes.
Macrorie’s article is right on the money! I’ve always thought that what I considered to be “professional” writing seemed boring and robotic. I feel this way because if I told someone the exact same story I would speak differently. I like to use humor and sarcasm in conversation. However, sometimes when I’m writing I lose track of my true feelings on the topic. Actually when I think about it, writing can seem dry and lacking viewpoint. It sounds so matter of fact and missing personal experience. I will say that I am an avid user of “Engfish”. I may even be an “Engfishaholic”. It is hard to break habits that we’ve been molded to have but at least the first step is identifying that there is a problem. Macrorie has made me consciously think about my writing from my own viewpoint not that of others.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Krystal Prayer summary mainly talked about what she got from the article instead of what the article was about. Although she did not talk so much about the summary of the article but about what she expeirenced I found it very interesting. Benjamin Unfried summary was also a bit opioniated with the things he got out of the article as well. I like that he gave examples from the article for those who did not read it. I thought that both Krystal and Benjamin did well on the summaries with them being the first people to have to post one.
ReplyDeleteMost people know of at least one teacher who grades positively in response to big words and "Engfish." I have found that they are not English teachers, but, usually, science and history instructors.
ReplyDeleteI use "Engfish" for academic writing and believe this began in middle school when writing started to actually be graded and large words scored higher points. Students need to learn how to improve their English skills and bad grades are a way of motivation. To me, putting blame on students and teachers is ridiculous. Neither of them are trying to offend you, Mr. Macrorie.
A solution Macrorie could have mentioned is taking a creative writing class. "Engfish", especially here at SIUC, will be eliminated or the writer will be ripped to pieces.
Benjamin Unfried and Krystal Prayer both wrote a good summary, however, it was more of their reaction to what the article said. From their responses however I was able to understand that the article "Engfish" was about young adult writers using big words to impress their teacher. And also that the author believed that college students should use more creativity with writing and he used an example about how third-graders write. I thought it was cool how Krystal was able to relate that into her own life and help make it seem more real. I agree with both of them, and agree that when writing papers college students should begin to write more creatively, and make them more interesting.
ReplyDeleteMacrorie’s article "Engfish" comes from a very true belief in the academic system...flattering is overrated. Students are taught from a very young age that we should express our thoughts and opinions in the most efficient way to receive praise from our teachers. The only problem is overtime our natural speaking manor becomes lost and your left with "Engfish". Macroie's article points out a fact that not many consider, classroom education has caused students to trade their natural voice for a mechanical one. I agree with Macroie that the best way to achieve praise from your teachers is to speak what you know and how you feel not what you've learned and read in a classroom.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Engfish" Ken Macrorie addresses the problem of mechanical writing that students develop as they advance through their years of education. I agree with Macrorie that younger students put more of themselves into their writing, and older students write like robots. This problem may be due to the fact that as a student's eduction increases so does the imaginary editor on their shoulder. I read the summaries of Macrorie's article above, and did not think that either entry summarized the article at all. However, the two entries are the first of the semester, and seem to have a lot of thought put into them. I can relate to "Engfish" because I always find myself trying to minimize the editor on my shoulder, and try to write more loosely.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Macrorie's assessment of the problematic way that most students write in their English classes, for the most part. Students often use superfluous words in their writing in order to flesh out their papers to more easily meet the length requirement, or because they are trying to impress their teachers by giving them what they think is wanted. Reworded redundancy for the sake of lengthening a paper was something I often came across when proofreading my peers' papers in high school. I used to do it myself. However, I know people who do talk in a way that might sound pretentious to some people, so if they write in that way I don't think it would be considered Engfish. I thought the ending was dissatisfying, though. It is mentioned that there are things that can be done to end the Engfish "circle," but it is just left at that, with no examples given.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin and Krystal did a good job at summarizing the article but at the same time they talked about their reaction after reading it. Yet they still managed to get their point across about the article's purpose.
ReplyDeleteIn Macrorie's article, Engfish, he addresses the problem of using big words while composing a paper. In my opinion, I think students nowadays are increasing their learning and using a wider range of vocabulary rather than sticking to small and simple words. Macrorie thinks students are trading their 'natural voice' for a 'mechanical voice' when really they're not. I disagree with that because even myself use big words when composing a paper and find myself being more creative rather than 'robotic.'
Taking into account that these were the first summaries for the class, I think Benjamin and Krystal did well. The major problem with the summaries are that they are not summaries, but response papers. The two students did a good job expressing the main points of the article, but their opinion is not necessary when summarizing an article. If a reader wants to view a summary, they want to know the major points of the article, not the writers opinion. On a side note, I did find the ending of Krystal's response entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points that Ken Macrorie made in "Engfish." The majority of the time when you are writing papers or essays, you tend to use words that you wouldn't use in your everyday life. Reason being, to satisfy the professor, and make yourself sound more intelligent. Most students, such as myself, get into the habit of using such big words because they feel this is something their teacher would prefer. When no one corrects you on this issue, you assume it is the right thing to do. Especially if your teacher praise you for using such big words. The main point Macrorie was trying to make was that your natural english disappears in the process of you writing with more "intelligence" and simply becomes Engfish.
ReplyDeleteKrystal Prayer's summary on "Engfish", mainly focused on her own opinion rather on focusing what the original story was about. Even though she wrote of her own opinion, I was still able to grasp what the article was talking about. Benjamin Unfried's summary was also of thought rather on focusing what the story was about. Benjamin Unfried did manage to explain some good points. He discussed that, college students like him tend to rely heavily on smarter words.
ReplyDeleteIn Macrorie's article, "Engfish", Macrorie explains the problem of big words that students use to make them look smarter. Due to these circumstances, Macrorie believes students are losing their "natural voice". In my own opinion, I believe he is right. Nowadays students use bigger words to sound as if they can get away with a better grade not truly understanding what the word means.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood job to both students that had to be the first to write one of these summaries. Benjamin Unfried did a good job on sticking to the subject and getting to the point. He clearly articulated what the authors message to the reader was. The only part of Unfrieds review that is cheap is when he wrote, "...because I am a college student....obviously...." To say obviously is not needed and throws the sentence out of flow.
ReplyDeleteThe first summary written by Krystal Prayer was a bit winding in its own way. Prayer wrote mostly about her thoughts while reading the article and didn't write so much about what the article was trying to convey without any added filter. Your personal interests are none of the readers concern.
Ken Macrorie's article titled, "Engfish", was a fascinating article. I thought it to be interesting that as we get older and become more educated, our writting skills are actually weakened. Personally, I would like to think that education helps one to write stronger papers. This makes me wonder where the education system failed us? Where did we go wrong. Somewhere down the line we have been taught to replace simple meaningful words with more complex vocabulary. By doing so, there seems to be a loss of emotion coming from the writing. Overall I thought that Krystal and Benjamin did a good job and I thought that there comments and personal statements were interesting.
ReplyDeleteMacrorie's article, "Engfish" is definitely true! It was a good article because many people can relate and connect with it. Personally, I know Engfish has become a part of me and I tend to write like that naturally. As for Benjamin, I agree with him and I liked the "third grader" example also. For Krystal's summary, I believe she wrote more of a comment since it was very opinionated and she added personal experiences. Both of them reviewed the article well but included their own thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thought both articles were good, but one thing that I believe both writers need to improve on is incorporating more about the actual reading. This will give the readers more incite on the idea of Engfish. After reading both summaries, I was still stuck on the actually meaning of the word Engfish. Both of there opinions were good, but a summary is more than opinion, it is also facts about the article so that the reader knows what the article is about without actually having to read it his/herself. All in all, the opinion included in both summaries were good, but a summary is more than just opinion, it is also facts.
ReplyDeleteThe two individuals who were supposed to summarize Ken Macrorie's Engfish did not do much summarizing. I do not think the directions were clear to the bloggers at the time. There was very little summary in what they were writing. No clear definition of Engfish is found in their blog summary. I think both writers need to read the sheet on how to write a summary that was handed out in class and resubmit their blog entries. Summaries condense what was written in an article. Summaries should not have any opinions or personal associations with the article. I think after receiving the handout the bloggers who summarized will do a much better job when they resubmit their blog entries.
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree on the fact that the first two people that went did well for being the first ones to do this assignment. We all can agree on the fact that the directions weren't that clear. Eventhough they weren't really so-called "summaries" but they did a good job at expressing their opinions. I don't think there is too much more to say because the two basically did our job (haha). But for future references, a summary doesn't include opinions and thoughts but a overall view of what the author is saying.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKen Macrorie's "Engfish" examined the way that we use language. The main argument Macrorie made was that of which basically says once we get to college we lose our sense of self and only write within the realm of "academic" language. I completely agree with Macrorie because we are barely asked to write on our feelings the more we progress in our college careers. Most papers, and assignments that we do we are told to use proper grammar, no slang, so on and so forth. So that fact that Marcorie wants us to revisit our inner "third-grader" is a very cool concept.
ReplyDeleteI found Macrorie's article, "Engfish," to be a very interesting read. I appreciated his frank opinion of the inadequacies that can result when instructors focus too much on how to write with proper grammar and syntax and not enough on how to actually convey a simple thought efficiently. The examples he included seemed eerily similar to papers that I've heard and read from other students; which I think shows how widespread the "Engfish" epidemic really is. My personal experiences have been a little different than some of the others in the class because I've been involved with creative writing programs since high school. We're generally taught to be as concise as possible with our word choices, and grammar frequently takes a backseat to content. In fact, in my poetry class last semester we pretty much threw grammar out the window from day one. Somewhere between the College of Education and the College of Liberal Arts lies a middle ground that I think could help eliminate the sort of lifeless writing that Macrorie has taken issue with.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if we are supposed to be commenting on the article itself or if we are supposed to comment on the summaries.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, the summaries made for interesting reads but really were not summaries but more of comments due to personal opinions.
The article, I found very interesting. I see the point though. At a college level we are expected to use big words and make fancy sentences however, these fancy sentences lose the readers attention. Short, sweet, to the point as well as in an attitude tone is what holds the readers focus. Also using words and comparing them to others helps to focus or give the reader a better understanding of what is going on. People like to know right then and there and not have to stop mid-sentence to look up a word they do not understand because it is in a complex sentence or they just are not grasping the word from the context clues. I can identify with this article because if I have to look up a word or grasp from context clues boom focus is gone and I could carless what I am reading.
At first, I am totally unfamiliar with the word Engfish. I think I am Chinese so that I have no idea with this proper noun in English. However, I also have no idea with Enfish after I've read the article twice. Then, I am looking forward to getting different sights about Engfish from my classmates. After reading Krystal Prayer's and Benjamin Unfried's blogs, I've found that they seems have more or less understanding with the article as I do. However, both of them have done a great job to share their valuable opinions and experiences with us. I am glad to know them as well. On the other hand, I have searched online and found a website for futher understanding of Engfish. It might give a little help which is
ReplyDeletehttps://e-folio.web.virginia.edu/E-folio-Archive2/1/EDIS542/2004Fall-1/cs/UserItems/dwc8j_661.html
I think it is a good chance for us to learn together since all of us don't know Engfish very well.
The "Engfish" article expressed an issue that people lose sight of; including personality in writing. I feel as if a lot of people get caught up in what I'd call "technical english", as we get older we are taught about using better word choices to express ourselves. In reality, the words that we are taught to use don't really mean that much to us. For example, I could say " I'm about to go to the store" as opposed to, "I am about to go to the supermarket". My second sentance seems a bit more unnatural than the first. I think both Krystal and Benjamin understood the meaning of the artical pretty well, they both adressed the issue of writing articles of liturature strictly for academia. Honestly, I feel as if we all are coming to a similar conclusion, and that is to include your feeling when you write.
ReplyDeleteJust as many previously have stated I was confused as to what I was initially reading. But from what I learned from the article Engfish is a style of writing that students suffer from that causes them to lose personality and style in their writing. It is not completely the students, they have been brainwashed throughout their educational career to write this way. I too, am often guilty of pulling words out of thin air in an attempt to create some sort of educational rhetoric. The example the author uses about the third grader was perfect in showing the purity of the writings, everything was so pure so simple then. Not over analyzed like our lives today. It was evident that both Krystal Prayer and Benjamin Unfried understood the article and had insightful information to provide to the class; however they lacked a little in summarizing the article. Overall great article!
ReplyDeleteby Rashonda Boone:
ReplyDeleteEngfish in my understanding is defined as the use of over emphasized word structure. This article was written by Ken Macrorie. In his article he discussed a lot about the way students write and the way teachers respond to the students performance. This article can be very useful to read because it is a good resource for college students who don't quite understand the importance of great writing. For example, in the article it states,"when the students see them, they think they mean the teacher doesn't care what students write, only how they punctuate and spell. So they give him Engfish." This statement alone proves that this could cause mass misinterpretation between teacher and student on the grading level.The author also tries to emphasize the point that many college students fail to bring their words alive and this can also cause problems in their writing. the author tries to relate to students who may have a good sense of writing but not clear on the correct structure.
As far as the summaries above, as we discussed in class these are merely just opinions. Each summary touched on personal feelings toward the reading but failed to tell bloggers what the article was about. I enjoyed the summaries because they were very interesting and humorous to read.
The first two having to write a blog did not do a bad job at all. The blogs seemed more opinionated than they should of been, which is more appropriate for the comment section. It wasn't too clear to me what the point of the article was until I read it myself. Engfish is a type of writing students tend to do. The article examined the way we use our language. Krystal related it to a personal experience, which was interesting. I agree with the point of the article, that everything is too tedious these days and people are not given the writing freedom they deserve. We are told down to the periods and quotation marks how our papers are supposed to look, which leaves no room for creativity or even a mistake.
ReplyDeleteThese two blogs were interesting to read but didn't really explain too much in my opinion. If someone was to never read the article, Engfish, they probably would be more confused than anything. However, I do agree with the article and what the bloggers are saying because just like most college students I have tried to use "big" words to sound more educated and hopefully get a better grade. It is difficult to do research or explanatory papers by using your imagination because nine times out of ten you are going to receive the grade you want. I wish we could go back to the times when we could just write from the heart and be that third grader again.
ReplyDeleteThe article engfish by Macrorie is very interesting. The article seemed to be about the different ways that teachers correct student grammar compared to the way that they should. When summarizing it, Kyrstal Prayer explained mostly her struggle with it and left out some summarizing details. However, I do agree that the article was rather confusing difficult to grip. The author seemed to make different points about how teaching methods leave out the personalization of writing, and wrapped it up in the end with a personalized story by a 3rd grader. I do agree with the author that at some point down the line we stop writing with the intention to say what we want. Instead, writing to say what we're so supposed to in a way that we're supposed to.
ReplyDeleteWhat I got out of all this is those college students try to hard when writing. The student keep getting marked down when they write the way they feel about something. Because the students are wanting to use the words they use every day. But the student cannot use the words do to the fact that teacher do not consider it to be create. Even if they write something that amerces you in to the writing.
ReplyDeleteI felt that this applies to most of the papers I have wrote. The teacher wants you to use a very passive almost lifeless voice in order to convey the topic on which you are writing about. I was always taught that the better you feel when you type a paper the better it is, mostly because you enjoyed it. I could tell that the posters of the blog got the concept but didn't really say what the article its self was about. But after reading the article and then their posts it all began to make sense.
ReplyDeleteThe article Engfish by Macrorie applies to the average college student i believe. Since freshman year I've had teachers lower my grades for papers because i wasn't so called using the right "power words". For example in one of my papers i described an event i went to as just good. That was good enough for the teacher i had to use a stronger word to express how i felt about the event. The problem was it was no other way to describe it. The event wasn't bad but it wasn't great either it was just good. I think as students we want to express ourselves but at the same time we dont want a failing grade either.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUpon receiving the handout for summary writing it became very clear that what these two people have written were not summaries. What both students had written were merely suggestions. After reading the blog posts I had no idea what ENGFISH is about. I had to read the article on my own to know what the student's were talking about. I sympathize however, because it would be hard for me to summarize as well. The article is very interesting however, I don't think ENGFISH is practical in a real life college setting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the previous comments about this post, since it is the first one, and serves as a guide for how to write them correctly through observing the mistakes these students made. although these first two posts were not done correctly, they do shed some light on what the main idea is throughout the article. college students need to develop their own written voice instead of writing what they think professors want. the reviews could have used some more examples from the articles and additional synthesis of what the author discussed, but since these were the first ones, they provide a good outline of what we should and should not include in our own reviews.
ReplyDeleteafter reading the article then reading the summaries that the two posted i did not get a sense that they knew what they were talking about. Krystal Prayer seemed as if she got extremely off topic and did not really explain or summarize what the article was about. the second poster i think did not really summarize all that well either. after receiving the handout i think we will all understand what we are looking for in a summary.
ReplyDeleteIn Macrorie's article, “Engfish”, he addresses the problem of using words that students think the instructor wants to hear rather than words that students actually use and truly understand. I can relate to "Engfish" because I always find myself trying to impress the instructor by using words that are not in my vocabulary. Reading papers that you have to look up the meaning for a word in the middle of the read are not entertaining to read. So by using words that writers don’t use on a regular basics or actually understand loses its originality and is basically a lie. It seems that the older we grow getting our feeling involved with any college paper is a mistake, getting back to writing like we were in third grade doesn’t sound to bad.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Engfish" by Ken Macrorie is one that is easy to relate to. There are many times that I too find myself writing in a similar manner as Engfish. Using a "big" word can help a parer, but most of the time it messes up the flow of what has been written.
ReplyDeleteI, like many others, were a bit confused by this article. I believe that this article is about how teachers correct grammar mistakes in their students papers versus how they really should be grading them. The only part I really made sense of was the example about the third grader. I thought that both Krystal and Benjamin did a good job commenting on the article, giving both their opinions on what they thought of it.
ReplyDeleteStudents today are writing more in Engfish than in their natural voice. Ken Macrorie discusses this problem in his article, Telling Writing. Engfish is the taking on of an unnatural voice such as saying, “The co-captains of the respective team”, instead of saying, The co-captains of the two (or both) teams. This language has been passed on to students throughout their textbooks. They believe this is the way the teacher wants them to speak. He tries to correct this by changing the writing assignment to something more familiar, or interesting to the student. This has not worked.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe message behind Engfish? Why do people lose their ability to write. Besides using proper grammar and big words like most college students are trained too. We start to lack imagination. The imagination that is used to make the story come alive or in other words of the article it is “blah” do to the lack of creativity. The creativity is said to make the stories come alive when compared to something that maybe a trigger to everyday life. The trigger is needed to be a memorable story. If comparison lacks passion it seems to lack to spark imagination. Thus lack of creativity in student writing.
ReplyDelete