Response to Readings for 10 Mar 08

“Mechanical Correctness as a Focus in Composition Instruction” by Connors

Connors explains how various factors influenced a narrowing of instructional focus in the writing classrooms of nineteenth-century America. In essence, writing instruction became a course in proofreading because rigid rules made it easier for teachers to manage their huge workloads. Connors points out that the progression of writing manuals from textbooks to handbooks to grammar workbooks gradually degraded the experience students had with actual writing. At the same time, these manuals often became a crutch for teachers who knew “no more of their discipline than [was] contained in the texts” (69).

Connors’s piece once again startled me with the fact that today’s composition classrooms reflect some long-standing issues. First, we are still battling increases to class sizes for composition classes due to budget cuts in education. For example, I have heard that the English department at UNLV is asked to justify on a routine basis why freshman writing classes should be kept at a more manageable enrollment. Teachers must be allowed the time to focus on the way their students communicate in writing. If not, we will often have to make the decision that Connors mentions between what we will and will not have the opportunity to look at in a student paper. Second, we still have composition instructors who are unsure how to proceed if they do not have a textbook in front of them. Unfortunately, some graduate students I know were placed in writing classrooms without adequate foundational training in teaching or classroom management. They usually keep their heads above water by staying just one reading ahead of their students, if that, and feel uncomfortable explaining concepts in-depth to students. I often wonder what this experience is doing for both the students and the teachers.

Overall, I think Connors’s piece, like some of our previous readings, points out again how harmful it can be to over-emphasize an isolated component of writing or rhetoric. Just as current-traditional rhetoric relies too much on one mode of discourse, focus on mechanics places too much importance on a particular canon – style. Rhetoric and composition work best when different elements function together to accomplish a goal.

“Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar” by Hartwell

Citing long-standing debates between teachers/researchers who are passionate about grammar and those who are not, Hartwell tries to show definitively that grammar instruction – when done in isolation from rhetorical strategies – does not improve students’ writing. Hartwell counts himself among teachers who do not concentrate on grammar and wants to put this issue to rest and “move on to more interesting areas of inquiry” (228).

Although Hartwell raises some good points about the deficiencies of grammar as a focus for instruction and supports his ideas with plenty of research, I found his style a little off-putting. I tried to overcome my distraction so I could focus on his meaning, but I believe Hartwell forgot a major rhetorical factor: his audience. For example, if he sincerely wanted to persuade a “hostile” audience of grammarian “worship[ers]” (223) to his way of view, I don’t think repeatedly using terms such as “hammer in” (215-216) is a good way to go about doing it. Inferring that those who oppose your way of thinking are stubborn and fanatical could alienate the very people you might be trying to reach. I’m not sure why Hartwell’s approach bothered me so much personally because I don’t really focus on grammar when I teach. I suppose I was irritated because I do try and consider my audience when I write. If we want students to reach the “metalinguistic” level of learning, then we have to demonstrate rhetorical concepts, such as audience awareness, for them.

When I was able to get past the tone of Hartwell’s piece, however, I did find it interesting that researchers believe some writing instruction might work only because teachers think that it does. If a focus of instruction can have a placebo effect for a classroom, I wonder what an experiment with a “control” group would look like.

“Reflections on Academic Discourse: How It Relates to Freshmen and Colleagues” by Elbow

Like Connors, Elbow maintains that academic discourse cannot benefit students if it simply centers on the stylistic or mechanical features of writing. Elbow goes a step further, though, and asserts that academic discourse is not a Platonic form that waits to be discovered. Instead, academic discourse – like non-academic discourse – must incorporate all of the rhetorical appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos. In other words, students must be able to not only state facts and arguments clearly but also be able to apply their own character, experiences, and feelings to the writing.

I am not typically a huge fan of Elbow’s – probably because I am still ambivalent about his “writing without teachers” concept – but I did relate to his premise that students’ ideas should not be discounted if they are presented in less-than-recognized academic language. I vividly remember one of my undergraduate professors who consistently corrected us in class with the advice to “use words that are more collegiate” during discussions. Most of us used to sit in class trying to figure out the best words to use and ended up not saying much at all. (Of course, this may have been what the professor was hoping for?) Then there was also the one student who could use every term in the textbook but didn’t know what any of it meant. Anyway, I agree with Elbow that we often cannot tell if students have really grasped a concept until they can express it in their own way. Elbow suggests that academic discourse is the result of reflection, experience and writing as a process, not something we can use as a text in the classroom.

“Responding to Student Writing” by Sommers

Sommers reflects some of our other readings this week as she discusses effective and non-effective ways to give feedback to students on their drafts. For instance, Sommers explains that focusing on mechanical issues in a first draft is usually counter-productive to improving student writing. Sommers advises us to first motivate students to work through the larger issues of ideas and content before we direct students’ attention to surface details.

I enjoyed Sommers’s article a great deal because I feel responding to student writing, particularly in business writing, is a definite weakness in my teaching. I want to help my students, but I freely admit to changing my reviewing methods practically every semester. I’ve tried commenting only on content, but then my students often miss the importance of formatting for business documents. I’ve tried commenting on formatting and content only to find that students don’t realize how important mechanics are to their ethos in the corporate world. I know that I most often overload my students with comments on their drafts, but I’m just not sure how to cover everything when we don’t have time for multiple drafts during a semester. What is the best way to respond to student drafts when we are under a time crunch?