The Loss of Formalism-- Connors & Christensen

Connors presents a compelling overview of the rise and fall of sentence-based rhetoric pedagogy as it played out in the world of composition teaching. He focuses on Christensen's "Generative Rhetoric of the Sentence" ( the 2nd reading for today), along with imitation exercises and sentence-combining. These theories combined to make up the most commonly accepted teaching methods in composition from the 60s until the 80s. As Connors points out, the theories on sentence rhetoric were not suddenly attacked or disproved. Opposing anti-formalism and anti-behaviorism arguments existed from the beginning and slowly took over the conversation over time. In a world where we rarely hear any positive opinions of formalism, it was very interesting to read this report and see how effective and valuable these techniques were in the day, and how (at least in Connor's opinion), they still could be if we'd let them back into the conversation.

Christensen's view was that if people could learn to write good sentences, they would be better writers over all. He started with short base-level sentences and had students attach initial and final modifying clauses and phrases, allowing them to create "cumulative sentences." He aimed to build their syntactic dexterity.

This formal vs. anti-formal conversation is one I have had in most all of my classes on teaching ESL. Christensen's method would be called "bottom-up" teaching, as opposed to Chomsky "top-down" approach, in which people do not need to be taught forms and structures because they were born with universal grammar knowledge and all of that knowledge will be developed with exposure and practice. My opinion has been and continues to be that bottom-up and top-down both need to be present in language classrooms, and I think the same could be said in composition teaching. I think that the conversation about syntactic rhetoric teaching is an important one to bring back into the light as we think about what skills our students need to become mature, developed writers.

Perl, Rose, Booth

The articles we read for today all incorporate an idea of striking a balance. Perl talks about balancing the recursive writing processes with the "projective structuring," or balancing the personal writing process (writing for the self) with writing for an audience. Booth's article describes a balance in more of a strictly rhetorical sense. He mentions balancing the the subject, the audience, and the character of the speaker--reminiscent of the logos/ethos/pathos triangle of rhetorical strategies. And Rose describes striking a balance between the confining structure of writing rules and the freedom to just get something out on the page. All of these different concepts take slightly different topics involved in the writing process. But it is striking to me that balance is key to successful writing in all of these authors' minds.

How do we teach balance to our students? Is it the sort of thing they can only learn through practice and experience? Or through reading balanced writing? I am working on teaching rhetoric now. I am thinking about how to illustrate the importance of balancing argument logic, audience and writer character. And with that, talking about their own writing processes and how to keep rules in mind, but not let them hinder the writing process. It seems like a difficult thing to explain.

Gaff & Allen

Gaff's main argument is that we need to diminish the walls of pretense and confusion that have surrounded the academic world and made students feel left on the outside, not sure how to get in. He states that explaining and letting students discuss some of the oddities of academic discourse in class will at least allow them to choose for themselves whether to be a part of that world or not, rather than just leaving them confused about what is even required.

Allen has similar frustrations about the setup of academia and its exclusivity, but a different tactic for resolving it. He argues that when students are taught to write expository works, they lack confidence and interest to do so and they are unable to make any new meaning. He shows through his experience how his teaching students to write personal narratives has had an enormous effect on their writing as well as in their lives as a whole. That task allows them to create meaning from things the know and have experienced, which makes them feel like they have something to contribute to the world and therefore can be part of the academic world.

I think that both of these authors present important ideas, but I especially found myself drawn to Allen. I found the personal narrative method and the results he got enthralling. As I read, I tried to think of how I could incorporate his ideas into my own classes. My students have just written personal narratives, and I would love to think of a way to tie that experience with the rest of the writing they will do this semester and beyond. One thing I am unsure about with this method though is how to also teach students skills of writing in different registers/tones for different audiences and how to correct grammar and form while still remaining their editor (not "corrector") and encouraging them to have confidence to write. A lot of my students wrote their narratives in a very casual, conversational voice, while others had good stories to tell but lacked grammar/spelling skills and good form. I am trying to think how to help students correct these types of things (to help prepare them for academia), while also encouraging that who they are and what they have to say are important and needed.

Mentoring through Feedback

One reading for this week included Sommers and Satz's article "Novice to expert: writing the freshman year." This included a detailed look at how students evolve in their writing over their four years at university, and what characteristics students who greatly improved their writing share with each other. These students who really grew as writers accepted their statuses as novices in their fields (at least initially), and also saw their writing as having a bigger purpose than just fulling requirements for an assignment. The authors discussed the importance of students seeing themselves as novices-- as beginning apprentices with a lot to learn about the discipline and its discourse. They also must see their papers as having a larger purpose in the course of their lives and their education. Grasping these concepts gives them the opportunity to really engage and look for ways to grow as they learn more in their classes over the years. Professors play an important role in helping student achieve these things. By developing interesting assignments and really treating students as newly arrived apprentices needing to learn the ropes, they create a dynamic of respect and foster learning. They give students an introductory sense of academic belonging that will lead and motivate them throughout college and beyond.
   
One way teachers can begin to treat students as emerging mentors is by creating meaningful feedback that helps students understand the "get and give" aspect of writing, rather than just seeing it as something they must do to get a grade. Feedback creates a dialog and helps students see that they have a valued voice in the field (or at least the beginnings of one) and that there is someone who is interested in reading what they have to say. This concept is also emphasized throughout the other readings we have read from Sommers' book. In most all of her chapters, including the ones we read for today, she stresses the importance of minimal feedback that really addresses the writer as a person, not the writing as a problem to fix. She recommends focusing on one lesson we want our students to learn overall, rather than creating a whole bunch of small corrections that they may or may not understand. This idea of treating the student more as a peer or an apprentice that you are guiding, and helping them to view themselves as such, will help them enormously in the grand scheme of their writing careers.