Cover page: My thought process behind this article was to persuade others to see formulaic writing as a necessary yet

restrictive process that needs revision inside of the current curriculum. Writers are to often taught that formula writing is the only way to write as opposed to something that should eventually just be a guide. I think that my paper makes some good points about why formulaic writing is a negative thing but also why elements of it must be kept. I think that I restate to many ideas and I need to learn to make my paper more concise. This paper has enlightened me on new means of learning to write and has changed my view slightly as to incorporating formula writing as a guide.

What is a good writer? How do we make them? Can we make them? These are some of the questions that English educators are asking all over the country and they have been asking these questions for years. In an attempt to answer the ever-elusive solution to these questions formulaic writing has emerged as a leader in the attempt to manufacture good writers at a young level. There are a lot of misconceptions in writing that are taught to developing writers. These misconceptions by themselves hurt the writers ability to effectively and efficiently express their thoughts and ideas. One of these ideas is the concept of formulaic writing being the only mode of writing taught in schools to young writers. Writing is taught as

having a certain pattern or set of necessary guidelines that must be followed in order for a paper to be deemed acceptable or well written. Examples of formulaic writing can include but are not limited to structure and template styles such as Jane Schaffer and the famous five-paragraph essay. In reality these forms of writing are acceptable if they are combined with other forms of writing. If the current curriculum was modified formula writing could be used as an asset. When it comes to formulaic writing there are two modes of thought advocacy and condemnation. Advocates of formulaic writing argue that using formulaic writing forces developing writers and teachers to learn a common language when talking about writing (Wiley 62). This happens through the knowledge of the formula itself and the universal ideas and language that everyone familiar with the style picks up. Having a universal language allows teachers to collaborate and share ideas but more importantly allows for a continuous uniformity in what students are taught regarding the writing process (Wiley 62). An obvious benefit is seen in having common lexicon and limiting

the concepts a student must learn. It allows for teachers and students to easily discuss an essays structure (Wiley 63). Advocates of formulaic writing also argue that formulaic writing empowers students to learn how to organize their ideas. Young writers often times get lost in the daunting task of writing and lose sight of what they are trying to say. By using formulaic writing a student only has to plug in his or her original ideas to reach a higher level of productivity in the writing process (Novick 12). Among its advocates formulaic writing is thought to offer students a tool to structure thought and feeling and make creativity possible (Graff, Birkenstein). This mode of writing is seen by many as a powerful tool to enhance the creativity and writing ability of writers that struggle with formulating their own essay structure. The opponents of formulaic writing argue the opposite. Opponents of formulaic writing do not generally argue against the benefits of having a common language but they do argue strongly against the emphasis this type of writing places on structure. By teaching students that this kind of writing is the correct way to write developing writers learn bad habits that force them into stifled levels of creativity and restrict their ability to think creatively. This emphasis on structure is the only thing that students are taught. This never allows for other types of writing to sink in and the inevitable result ends with students clinging to the formula like a life raft from which they never want to disembark (Wiley 65). Formulaic writing does the writer a discourtesy because young writers especially need carefully structured assignments, but do not benefit at all from repetitively forming their ideas around the same model time and time again. Students who participate in this kind of writing develop a dependency on the structure and on the

teacher who has often times already decided that the structure is what will be rewarded (Wiley 65). Opponents of formulaic writing further argue against the structure by using what is taught at higher levels of education as a piece of their argument. Students are taught that finding a niche or a place for their writing is important. They cannot do this if everything they write fits a predetermined mold. Students must develop a repertoire of strategies for dealing effectively with various writing tasks presented to them in different situations (Wiley 64). Its opponents see the goal of formulaic writing as a means of producing a paper of a requisite length that does the writer a discourtesy. It is argued that because the paper is judged off of its structure there is no relationship between structure and ideas because anything can be placed to fit into the same form (Wiley 64). I believe that formula writing has both benefits and negative effects on a developing writer. There is a definite benefit to having a common language regarding the writing process and continuity in the education of developing writers is important. However, I also believe that these formulaic styles of writing restrict the ability of the writer to express thoughts and ideas completely and efficiently simply because this is all that is being taught to students. If formulaic writing were encouraged more loosely as a suggestion or guideline as opposed to a final template to follow while writing than developing writers would achieve the ability to interpret ambiguity in research and better understand the nuances of language. This would result in the writers ability to express more complete and efficient thoughts and ideas. I believe that both formula writing and non-formula writing can work together ultimately enhancing the ability of the writer in an effort to produce clearer more insightful pieces of writing.

First looking at structure it is easy to see the benefits of formulaic writing. Using the Jane Schaffer formula as an example it is evident that formula writing allows for students to separate facts from opinions. The Jane Schaffer method includes a topic sentence followed by a fact supported by two commentary statements (Wiley 62). This is important because it allows for students to begin seeing what is generally accepted and what is ambiguous. There is no room inside of the formula for more than a fact and two commentaries per paragraph. However, without this structure a developing writer would not have been able to pick out the facts from ambiguous material an obviously important part of the writing process. The structure of Jane Schaffer is not the only formula that allows for this sort of organizational discovery. The five-paragraph essay works in a similar way. Instead of wandering around looking for ideas and ways to express them the five-paragraph essay presents a clear way for the writer to introduce, develop, and conclude (Smith 16). This is seen through the structures opening, three body, and closing paragraphs. Mastering the structure of this formula presents a similar predicament to the Jane Schaffer model. Students can start to organize and express their thoughts, but they can only do so within the formulas limited confines. The structures of these two examples are representative of most formulas. They present a clear template for the writer to use when producing a final product, but they do not allow for an increased level of thought as to the ambiguous nature of almost every form of literature. If these structures were presented in a looser manner incorporated with the other more free writing structures students would not only be able to gain the ability to organize their thoughts but they would also be able to explore ambiguous ideas

and statements that inevitably will come up. It is obvious that these formulaic writing styles can organize students thoughts. If they were not so unforgiving in what they allow and they permitted exploration and expression that other forms of writing include developing writers would reach their full potential. The second and probably more important part of formulaic writing compared to other forms of writing is the content. Content and structure go hand in hand and touch on a lot of the same issues, however, content breaks off into more important issues regarding the long time effects that formulaic writing can have on a writers ability as he or she advances through the education system. An example can be seen in the type of writing that occurs in high school classrooms. Aside from teaching catering to organizational help most teachers present the writing process to their students with SAT scores and standardized test scores in mind. It is proven that formulaic writing styles score higher on test scores (Wiley 62). While it is important for students to do well on large tests, like the SAT, what happens when they get into college and those large tests are no longer a factor? What do students do when standardized testing ends and professors and educators expect intelligent responses to questions that dont have a factual answer? Students cling to these formulaic styles of writing because they do not know anything else (Wiley 65). Their styles of writing are not conducive with that of free thought and exploration of ambiguity, which results in a lack of preparation for the collegiate level after high school. Early writers benefit greatly from the organizational skills that formulaic writing teaches, however, these same early writers suffer from a lack of knowledge and ability to effectively express any form of exploration past the formulas. Similarly, without

freethinking forms of writing students cannot fully express ideas and explore deeper meanings in given texts. There must be a better way to teach writers in order for them to gain the benefits from both forms of writing. To better integrate both styles of writing into the curriculum we could change the current curriculum. From grades one to eight formulaic writing should be taught because this is an age at which students are typically incapable of forming their thoughts into a structured piece of writing. Formulaic writing presents a pattern and restricted structure that can teach young writers how to write and decipher fact from ambiguous statements. Once students reach high school they should be taught how to write in a way that questions ambiguous statements. Formulaic writing should start to integrate with a nonformula style of writing but it should not be completely let go of in grades nine through grade ten. By eleventh grade all forms of formulaic writing should be let go of seeing as by this time students should have an idea of how to write correctly using the formulas as guides as opposed to templates. Not only would this allow for students to score higher on standardized tests, but it would also prepare them for higher education where they can really have a voice and express important opinions regarding any number of topics and issues. If there was more room for creativity in writing with formula writing students could not only clearly organize their ideas, but they could also explore and continue with creative thought. By just using formula writing or non-formula writing as opposed to using formula writing and non-formula writing students are denied the ability to reach their full potential. This can be achieved by restructuring the current curriculum to teach formulaic writing styles first and then integrating them with non-formula styles of writing

with the ultimate goal being to move away from formula writing all together by the time students reach college. By combining the writing formula structure with the freeness that comes from other forms of writing any writer can maximize organizational skills as well as creative analysis skills.

Wiley, Mark. "The Popularity Of Formulaic Writing (And Why We Need To Resist)." English Journal 90.1 (2000): 61. Biography Reference Bank (H.W. Wilson). Web. 5 Oct. 2012.

Kerri Smith The English Journal , Vol. 95, No. 4 (Mar., 2006), pp. 16-17 Published by: National Council of Teachers of English Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30047081

Birkenstein, Cathy, and Gerald Graff. "Point Of View: In Teaching Composition, 'Formulaic' Is Not A Four-Letter Word." Style 42.1 (2008): 18-21. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Oct. 2012.

JM Haro, et al. "Antipsychotic Monotherapy And Polypharmacy In The Treatment Of Outpatients With Schizophrenia In The European Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes Study." Journal Of Nervous & Mental Disease 200.7 (2012): 637-643. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 5 Oct. 2012.