In the briefest of descriptions, the history of composition has moved from ancient rhetoric to a domain of the elitist. After World War II composition fell victim to an overemphasis of grammar and punctuation due to overpopulated classrooms and overworked instructors. Writing was then bombarded with a tidal wave of theory, which has left the modern compositionist with a plethora or choices, but little assurance that one theory is better than another.
The parts of the readings that struck me as most important were those that were most personal. Bishop, Shultz, and Popken (through the eyes of Hopkins) opened my eyes to an unsung battle for recognition in the academic world. It is a given that teaching writing is difficult, but rarely does one take the time to ponder the line of teacher who came before and wonder at the sheer amount of work they were able to accomplish. It is also worth mentioning as well how noble educators were that did not bend to what was modern or new just for the sake of newness. Fulkerson reminded me why I am skeptical of new theory by introducing literary theories as composition theories, and Stewart brought out my anger toward dispensers of wisdom by bashing the very basis of composition and then attempting to soften the blow by admitting that he only wishes to see traditional composition enhanced, not replaced. Williams work didn’t really add to my knowledge, nor did it evoke any real emotion or opinion; hopefully someone will enlighten me in class.
My own practices in the classroom are grounded in traditional composition theory, which is probably why Stewart’s work came off as mildly offensive. I would like to think of myself and my approach to composition as pragmatic. The students have a set of skills that they need to master for the completion of their academic career and as a toolbox to draw from in their working career. Composition should serve as both a form of expression and a problem solving tool, but ultimately it must be something that is teachable and measurable. I know this is unpopular, but it is the responsibility of the teacher to do the job that is required without falling prey to the shiniest new toy or the most fun way of doing things. People who know me and who read this will probably be at a loss for words; I am one who lives for fun, new toys, and the easy way out, but molding the lives of others must be approached with an eye for only the benefit of the student. This is why when Fulkerson writes of expressionism, I cringe. I see the possibilities to enhance what is already being taught, but to replace a philosophy that is rule based for a theory based on the exaltation of freedom, ethos, and “what feels right” is a step in the direction of anarchy and one that I am more than hesitant to take.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I share your feelings, Tony. A pragmatic approach seems most sensible.
ReplyDeleteI would not say that being a pragmastist in terms of education is any way a negative. If we lose the vital perspective that pragamatism gives us, then we have a large section of the population who just sit staring, asking us "Why do I need to know this," and we have no real answer for them. If anything, I think that there should be more pragmatism in education. We should have a very clear idea of why we are teacing students the information that we are passing along to them. If there is not a practical reason for material, then why teach it? I feel that a "reason" is more than just, "It has always been done this way."
ReplyDeleteI absolutely LOVE your opening remarks!!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree that we get so bogged down in theory that we forget what it is like for students to learn to just write well. I am probably NOT what you would call a traditionalist, because I believe that most people are afraid of writing, and the best way to teach writing is to just have students write and worry about grammar later - that being said, I too look at grammar, punctuation, and spelling as tools (I actually use that idea in my classrooms, comparing commas and clauses to a hammer and nails).
And, I really resented Stewart's snobbish attitude toward the five-paragraph essay. Beginning students often don't know where to begin organizing their thinking (let alone their written arguements)into a logical order that follows a specific line of thought - they are usually all over the place, and the five-paragraph essay is a wonderful tool for their toolpouch.