Randall Popken: Is It Really that Difficult to Understand?

The most depressing aspect of Poken’s research is that it has to be written at all. Many of his arguments, or better those of Hopkins, are nothing more than common sense. However, I am not so naive as to believe that because the knowledge is common sense the powers that be or the general public will understand or even care. Sadly, I believe this is the case more often than not with both teachers of writing and the educational system in general. Everyone I overhear speaking of education praises what a great and noble thing it is to be an educator, but in their next breath these same individuals make a crack about vacation time and the fact than they will never pass another worthless bond or mill levy.

I think that was plenty of steam; I believe part of this assignment was supposed to be focused on the actual article, so I’ll get back to that now. I found the beginning of Popken’s article to be both interesting and a little questionable. His opening remarks are grounded solidly in Bruce Horner’s flagrant argument over struggle between teachers, those who “labor,” and scholars, those who produce “work.” While this would be a great argument to pursue (I personally find the comparison hilarious, akin to the difference between a Green Beret and a reservist), the subject is never really picked up after the very, very lengthy observation of Hopkins’ personal struggles. I can only assume that Popken’s rhetorical strategy is grounded in the assumption that those who would side vehemently with Horner will also be sympathetic to the plight of Hopkins.

All of this then brings us to the man in question: Edwin Hopkins. As I stated above, Hopkins’ experience is not unique, though the lengths to which he went to solve his problems are notable. What I find more interesting and more significant the discourse of our class is his personal reason for such an ardent pursuit: he believed both his physical and metal health were less important than his “new composition pedagogy” (621). Hopkins was a strong proponent of both conferencing and the detailed review of ALL student writing. While I see the merit of Hopkins’ stance, I can only agree with him to a point. I love my students, and I love my job, but I love being alive more. Conferencing with students is vital to the teaching of good writing, but not all students will head an instructor’s words, nor will all students even care. Therefore, one must be judicious when applying conferencing as an integral component of composition pedagogy.

The other half of this “new” approach to composition is the detailed reading of all work. Now this is something that I can firmly get behind. I say this because a student should be able to trust that their effort to produce should be matched by the instructor’s effort to enhance. If the work isn’t going to be read thoroughly, it should not be assigned at all. Once again, I can actually feel eyes rolling in their sockets. Yes, I have assigned writing that did not receive the most intense of reading, but it is rarely related to choice; this is my strongest connection to Hopkins’ complaints. Because of the external factors that Hopkins’ described more than one hundred ago, writing teachers that truly desire to do the best by their students are asked to choose between their work and their lives; I for one am not as noble as Hopkins, but perhaps you are.