Response to Readings for 5 May 08

“Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories” by James Berlin

Berlin states that, rather than debate different theories for an accepted, singular composing process as they usually do, compositionists should be exploring the theories that stand behind the many processes for writing. Berlin points out pedagogical methods for writing have always been “grounded in rhetorical theories” (256), so teachers need to know how the various rhetorical theories shape the way writers view audience, knowledge, etc.

In demonstrating what he means, Berlin does an excellent job of explaining how each major pedagogical theory compares to the others. In Neo-Aristotelian, or Classicist, theory, truth and knowledge is something we can gain through our senses, and our primary rhetorical concern is figuring out how to use language to invent this knowledge for others. The Current-Traditionalists, or Positivists, base their theory on a type of scientific knowledge that can be observed objectively. As opposed to the deductive approach of Neo-Aristotelian theory, Current-Traditional theory relies on language to arrange and style an inductive argument. Neo-Platonist, or Expressionist, theory posits knowledge as a perfect form residing outside of us and asserts that we must work together to chip away at the errors that prevent us individually from reaching the truth. Finally, Berlin explains the New Rhetoric theory – his personal favorite – to show how knowledge can only be created through the social construction of language.

I like Berlin’s essay because it helped me understand the underpinnings of the major pedagogical theories. I know I’ve said this many times this semester, but I wish I had read some of our readings – like this essay – at the beginning of my graduate study. I think I would have approached writing instruction with a more informed teaching strategy.

“Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise” by Breuch

While she sees potential for post-process theory in teaching, Breuch feels the post-process theorists actually do themselves a disservice with their current focus on separating themselves from process theory. Rather than concentrating their efforts on discrediting process theory, Breuch wants theorists to highlight the post-process concepts of: 1) writing is something that cannot be mastered and 2) teachers and students should be collaborators who use dialogue to work together. If post-process theorists do this, Breuch sees a future where writing in a classroom is more similar to writing in a writing center – writers work one-on-one with tutors to develop their skill.

While Breuch’s essay is interesting, I kept wondering why we have to now come up with a new term – post-process theory – for concepts that have been covered in composition and discourse analysis theories for some time now. The idea of writing with students in a collaborative partnership, for example, sounds like Elbow’s Writing Without Teachers, except I think Elbow actually does a better job with the concept. Where Breuch advocates student writers working with “mentors” (120), Elbow suggests students work with other students. I think Elbow might be closer to writing as something that cannot be mastered because the interaction between student writers would not carry with it an implied power dynamic. Mentoring, on the other hand, implies that one person in a dyad is more knowledgeable or skillful, and therefore has a higher “power” position than the other. Even Breuch’s writing center analogy is slightly naïve because, as a consultant in the UNLV writing center, I know that students still saw me as an authority figure of sorts even while we worked one-on-one. Overall, this essay frustrated me because it seemed as though people are just trying to come up with something new to write about versus finding something that can actually be useful to teachers. I agree with Fulkerson’s assertion that writing about post-process theory might just be a “way of showing yourself to be au courant” (670).

“Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” by Fulkerson

Speaking of Fulkerson, his essay points out what is probably already common knowledge in composition theory – that there is a lot of division and debate within the discipline. To see what had taken place since his earlier study of metatheory, Fulkerson compared recent events to his work of 1990. In doing so, Fulkerson noted three primary “axiologies” (655) that form the basis of most contemporary teaching strategies: 1) Critical/Cultural Studies(CCS), 2) Expressivism, and 3) Procedural Rhetoric. Like Berlin, Fulkerson feels that each pedagogical theory looks at process but not in the same way.

I thought this essay was very interesting in the way Fulkerson explained his view of each axiology, but I especially agree with Fulkerson’s conclusion that “Preparing our graduate students in composition for the discourse…is becoming increasingly difficult” (680). From my own experience, all of the various ideologies have confused the way I see my own teaching philosophy – perhaps this is a good thing. I know I am not comfortable teaching from a CCS stance because I don’t want to unduly influence a student’s political/sexual/religious beliefs. Like Fulkerson, I often wonder if the goal of a CCS class is to develop writing or to push an agenda. I also am not happy with the expressivist ideology because I’m not sure that this method really prepares students for writing beyond the composition class. However, I do feel certain elements, like freewriting, can be very helpful to students. I suppose I most easily fit within the good old rhetorical camp because I want students to: “invent” through social interaction with each other (not with me – I prefer the students collaborate with their peers); “arrange” their writing in the best possible way for an audience and context because it’s not enough to express oneself if no one can figure out what is being said; and “style” their words in the most appropriate way for their specific purpose. Call me old-fashioned….

“Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning ‘First-Year Composition’ as ‘Introduction to Writing Studies’” by Downs and Wardle

In a very thorough treatment of their proposed pedagogy, Downs and Wardle attempt to demonstrate how changing FYC to a writing studies course would not only develop better writers but also bring more awareness to the composition discipline. The authors begin by questioning the conceptions that “academic discourse” is universal or transferable (or even exists) and asserting that students need to understand that writing content has to work within a specific context. To resist current misconceptions about writing, Downs and Wardle argue that a writing pedagogy has to involve students on a foundational level in which students would be slowly invited into the composition discourse community through interaction with published research, etc. In this manner, students would begin to care about writing on both a cognitive and affective level. Ultimately, I believe Downs and Wardle would like to see FYC evolve into a sort of combination rhetorical, discourse analysis, and composition theory course.

Wow, I absolutely loved this essay! Although there are some problem areas with Downs and Wardle’s pedagogical theory, which they openly acknowledge later in the essay, I thought their ideas were very refreshing. I think they actually may have come up with a resolution to the dissonance I expressed earlier about my preferred style of teaching. By heightening students’ awareness of rhetoric, discourse analysis, composition theory, and previous works in those areas, I feel FYC as a writing studies course could show students how writing has different dimensions that change with the context. This approach could also change the way many students accept published works as fact – without questioning the rhetorical appeals or construction of the discourse – and empower students to join the conversation.

Even though Downs and Wardle discount that writing about “what makes good citizenship” (568) and other topics that are being used in many FYCs could work as well as writing about writing research, I do think even those topics that Downs and Wardle disparage could be worked into a writing studies course. For example, students could choose to respond not to their stance on stem-cell research but to the writing strategies of various authors on the topic. In this way, even the rhetoric of scientific discourse could be illuminated for students. Overall, I think this is a fascinating proposal for writing instruction, and I wonder if Downs needs any help up in Utah.