# data[].attributes.body
List the sources you are working with as the title of your post. Copy and paste the following in a new post and fill in the blanks.

These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about _______________.
I think this because I identified ____, _____, _________ repeating/occuring as a pattern in these texts.
I think they are talking about this because____________________.
I find this interesting because ___________________________.

# data[].attributes.body
Read and respond to each of your peers via their padlet post. Your comment on their padlet post should accept the conversation your peer describes in their post and offer additional ways to think about it. You might find it useful to present your feedback in this format:

Yes, these scholars seem to be talking about _____________. They might also, however, be talking about ___________, ____________, ____________ and so it might be even more productive to explore the conversation in terms of ____________________.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about the methods of reading and writing and how there are better teaching methods that should be implemented into students' education. I think this because i Identified series of social choices/decisions, methods for improving writing/writing to improve, and seeking for ideas or techniques can help establish better writing repeating/occurring as a pattern in these texts. I think they are talking about this because Yancey established a statement where she said writing should be appreciated more therefore new teaching methods should be improved and developed. My other articles then showed many ways students can integrate better skills into their writing which was almost a response to yancey's article. I also discovered that all writing is about a series of social choices you make, social interaction with peers will help develop critical thinking into your writing. I find this interesting because there was correlation between all these articles. These sources are significantly responding to yancey's argument in ways writing can be developed and improved for learners.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about how writing is related to difference.
I think this because I identified that there are different styles of writing because of various situations/expectations, writing involving different audiences, purposes, structures, etc., and the rules of writing changing based on the person or assignment repeating/occurring as a pattern in these texts. All of the authors talk about how writing changes based on many different factors.
I think they are talking about this because students are being taught one way of writing. Each student is different and they need different teaching methods to understand how writing works. Also, by teaching only one way of writing, students are confused when trying to write in a different environment.
I find this interesting because it exposes how the current teaching methods for writing do not fit with everything or everyone, and all three authors are looking for change.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about changing the old writing curriculum to a new one in order to bring change in society. I think this because I identified repeating themes such as more participation in writing, revision in writing and writing is closely related to social identities. I think they are talking about this because Yancey wants to have new teaching methods in schools in order for students to become better writers, Giovanelli
wants writers to revise their writing by focusing on the audience which means that Giovanelli also wants to change the writing styles and Pattanayak mentions that new teaching method are needed because it can help minorities/middle class better opportunities. I find this interesting because even if all three authors don't address the same things in their writing their main purpose is to being change for students and make them better writers for future.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about writing as a form of citizenship. I think this because I identified "citizen composers", writing beyond the classroom, and the idea of questioning text folks read repeating as a pattern in these texts. I think they are talking about this because they seem to have a similar goal of writers producing or responding to what they read/experience with writing. I find this interesting because it recognizes that literacy has power beyond the classroom that allows folks to contribute to society.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about social uniformity. I think this because I identified passive, formulaic, and regulatory literacy practices occurring as a pattern in these texts. I think they are talking about this because humanity is diverse, but with diversity, we may experience inclusion or division, an issue comprised of leaders and lawmakers attempting to enforce their values, intensifying discrimination. I find this interesting because it recognizes and exposes the reasons behind a nation or group's ability to implement control, specifically through writing, a component very much involved in influencing our daily lives.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about writing as participation. I think this because I identified Yancey describing digital writing tools allowing greater access to more people to write and share their ideas, Giovanelli describes revision as choices--as the ability to develop an idea over time and change your mind, essentially, and Carillo describes reading and writing as transactions between people who exchange ideas. They are talking about these things to highlight how digital writing in the 21st century could/should allow for greater social participation--more people writing, revising their ideas, and exchanging ideas with others--if we leverage these opportunities. I find this interesting because I'm intrigued and encouraged by the idea that writing education can provide more access to more people to participate in social conversations and social problem solving. I find this interesting as a conversation because Giovanelli and Carillo offer potential MODELS for implementing the new curriculum that Yancey is advocating for in her article.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation critiquing the current English curriculum which holds the wrong values.
I think this because I have identified why the current curriculum is wrong, social influences, and English going beyond the classroom repeating as a pattern in these texts.
I think they are talking about this because Yancey talked about how technology has changed the way we write, Carillo talks about reading and writing is emphasized in a work setting, and Pattanayak talks about how the world is more diverse now that one English does not fit.
I find this interesting because they all critique different factors in the English curriculum which are all important to be able to understand the problem as a whole. It is also important for them to be having this conversation so that we can understand the multiple solutions each one suggests.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about the evolution of reading and writing while discussing the  problem's and solutions of the matter. I  identified the main connections in the three passages while seeing the different arguments being made. The main correlation I seen between the three authors were discussing how writing and reading are connected, how to pick up and apply different writing skills, and writing is situational because your writing for a specific audience. I  think that they talk about these topics to provide more  insight on the main topic why providing a better understanding of their overall goal for the passage. I find this interesting because the three different authors are arguing a similar problem and are all coming up with the same ideas trying to come to their own conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about the detachments that is implemented in reading and writing which separates both topics whether its in a learning environment. I think this because I identified the pattern of discussion about the lost connection between reading and writing and how over the years these two topics were taught in teaching classrooms were repeating/occurring as a pattern in these texts. I think they are talking about this because the difference between these two topics bring up the idea of students not being able to learn effectively. I find this interesting because in Yancey's writing the 20th century started as off learning to read rather than learning to write as well, in which Carillo brings up the topic of this barrier and Pattanayak discusses the social mobility of being influenced by others in writing.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about developing the education system. I think this because I identified the use of technology for teaching, the importance of revision, and how there are different types of writing that need specific aspects [the context, audience, writer's purpose, medium] repeating/occurring as a pattern in these texts.
I think they are talking about this because they realized how the current education system treats writing. Revision is either treated as editing, seen as a weakness or seen as a part after writing the draft not the part of the writing process. Technology is being introduced to curriculums so students can be able to use digital media to leverage their knowledge and be comfortable with different types of writing mediums.
I find this interesting because all articles want students to be able to become better members of society so that's why they want to change and better the educational system by improving how writing should be taught.

# data[].attributes.body
These three scholars seem to be having a conversation about the current state of reading and writing and how it could be better. I think this because I identified comparisons to past historical events, beliefs that writing isn't up to par with today's advancements, and The constant application of wanting writing to be better than what it is repeating/occuring as a pattern in these texts. I think they are talking about this because they have a similar message of wanting writing and reading to exceed the current limitations.
I find this interesting because these scholars probably didn't even know anything about each other but their articles are so similar.