Reichard 1 Melissa Reichard Dr.

Roggenbuck Theory & Practice of Writing 14 September 2013 The Writing Journey The early formations of the standard for English began in the early fifteenth century when the printing press emerged in London, England. In Anita Barrys text, English Grammar: Language as Human Behavior, she discusses how Standard American English (SAE) was born and how its evolution affected our native language. Barry states, Before the printing press was introduced into England, where English began, there was no recognized standard, nor was there any real need for one. Much of the important public writing was in French or Latin. English was used primarily for oral and informal purposes and varied quite a bit from place to place . . . . When people did write in English, they had no common spelling system, so the same word would be spelled different ways . . . lack of a written standard became a practical concern (4). As the model for the formal standard, London pushed our native language into an age of grammatical correctness. Our foundation of the standard is formed around the idea that language should be unvarying and permanent, like Classical Latin and Classical Greek (which were no longer spoken) They thought it was wrong that people who spoke in English invented new words and phrases, shortened others, borrowed words from other languages, allowed the meanings of words to change and expressed the same grammatical idea in more than one way (Barry 5). Barry illustrates that the foundations of our native language are quite problematic because not only has it been developed under two former languages that were no longer spoken and have no congruency between our language and theirs, but it also allowed no variation.

Reichard 2 As native speakers of English, we know that variation is inevitable and no one language is better than another. As native speakers of English, we have a general understanding of how to use our language in different forms and how to articulate what were saying based on the contexts we are in. The development of SAE has driven our educational curriculums into the idea that language is static and unvarying. With teachings still on skill and drill, grammar and punctuation, structure and form, students are being pressed with the idea that written language and composition must coincide with one right way, and if their writing doesnt fit the standard, than theyre simply not good enough.. So let me ask you, how can we, and our fellow educators, teach a pedagogical method in which the foundation is troublesome, teaches our students to place value judgment on language, and tolerates little room for expression and creativity? The variation between what is spoken and what is written is vastly different, and the standard is in constant motion. The more we ask our students to focus on a standard, the more they will become confused, frustrated, and perhaps turned off by the thought of writing, which can ultimately lead to a stunted growth in the learning process. It is understood that there is a basic need for knowledge and skill in academic writing; however, I argue that if our students arent feeling the composition process at all, where are we getting? Isnt it our job to get students interested in learning? My suggestion is to take the various approaches to composition and introduce them at certain moments or stages of students growth in the writing process. In Richard Fulkersons article, Four Philosophies of Composition, he argues that there is a gap between what teachers assign and what they asses based on the idea that educators really arent sure of what the different approaches to composition mean. So, to understand the various methods of teaching composition, its good for educators to have a general knowledge of the basic pedagogical methods. In Peter Elbows article, A Method for Teaching Writing, he

Reichard 3 models the expressivist method through his descriptions of what makes good writers. Elbow stresses the need for writing that advocates students as the central source for critiquing and evaluating their own writing based on how well they resound throughout their writing, how effective their connection is with their audience, and how well they have developed based on where they started without having been educated first on the traditional technicalities of Standard American English. The expressivist focuses on the writers ability to express his/her voice freely, without any worries over value judgment, form, punctuation, or grammar. Its the idea of getting the thoughts to transform into flowing words on the page. In contrast, the formalist looks at composition with an SAE eye: proper grammar, punctuation, five paragraphs, and an expectation to uphold the standard dogma of writing. Janet Emigs The Composing Processes of the Twelfth Graders proclaims, most of the criteria by which students school-sponsored writing is evaluated concern the accidents rather than the essences of discoursethat is, spelling, punctuation, penmanship, and length (93). The formalist method stressors in writing align quite closely with our own current stressors and perspectives on how writing should be taught in our classrooms today. The third method of teaching composition is mimetic. In Fulkersons Four Philosophies of Composition, he describes mimetic pedagogy as the emphasis on logic and reasoning (432). This approach focuses on sound thought and judgment based on propaganda analysis the detecting of hidden assumptions, emotional appeals, and fallacies in reasoning and heuristic systems (Fulkerson 432-433). It is no doubt that the mimetic approach is focused on research and support behind what the writer is trying to argue and accomplish. In William Covinos article, Rhetorical Pedagogy, he defines the last of the four pedagogical methods, rhetorical, as a process that encourages writing that is not restricted to self-expression or the

Reichard 4 acontextual generation of syntactic structures or the formulaic obedience to rules, but instead keeps in view the skills and contingencies that attend a variety of situations and circumstances (37). Covino declares that the rhetorical approach to composition is complex and much more sophisticated than the traditional view: Writing that adapts to the desire of the audience. His definition illustrates that the rhetorical approach to writing has a wide-range of purposes and can form to whatever is expected of the writer. In my personal experiences as a writer, both in student form and now as an educator, I believe that writing is a development that must begin with the students interest. Its difficult to say that because we so often begin skill and drill lessons at such a young in order to develop the formal aspect of composition; however, I think that if we took an approach that grabs students desire to write first, we can mold our students style of composition into the various forms of writing as they progress throughout the process. For example, if students are daunted by the thought of writing, it makes it harder for us to genuinely teach them; however, if we somehow turn the writing process into something that they can enjoy, it makes it easier for us to help them along the way. In addition, through their own interest and discoveries of writing, they are more able to ask questions and come to explore different areas of writing for themselves. At lower levels of composition, teachers should begin teaching writing through various mediums, helping their students to see the different paths writing can take and how it can be used as an outlet for imagination. For example, ask your students to draw a picture of somethinganything and then ask them to attach some sort of caption with it or story explaining what the picture is about. Dont pay any attention to their spelling, their form, or their grammar, rather focus on what their words are illustrating and saying. As the students progress in their learning process, or perhaps

Reichard 5 as they ascend in grade levels, introduce different contexts of composition. Help them to understand that there is a time and place for everything, even writing. In this case, students can see there is a difference between when they write for their own personal enjoyment versus writing for a teacher. At this point of instruction, the rhetorical and formalist pedagogical methods can be implemented into the classroom. Following the expressivist approach with formal and rhetorical methods introduce structure and audience into the students writing. Students have already learned how to create a voice because in the expressivist stage, they were channeling their own imagination, thoughts, and opinions without worrying over the techniques. Therefore, when audience, context, structure, and technicalities are introduced, it wont be difficult to help them transition and shape their writing to form these criteria because they already have a basic interest and they know how to write in a manner that is genuine and believable. Its almost like fine-tuning something that is already there. All areas of composition are necessary to have, yet I believe that they have to be incorporated at different times of the writers development because each approach has an essential role in helping the writer to be a wholesome creator. I never had pleasant experiences with the formalist professor who marked my paper in red ink, scribbling discouraging comments about my writing in the margins and scrawling awkward over almost every other sentence. However, after a few of those C papers, I finally began to learn a few things about the organization of a thesis statement (splitting it into the three topics of your paper), proper structure with a topic sentence at the beginning of every paragraph, clearly outlining what it was going to discuss, and how to structure my sentences around her awkward comments. By the end of the semester, I was happy to finally get a B+ on my final paper. I think the biggest source of shock and discouragement came from my high school teachers who would always remark on

Reichard 6 my writing skills and ability to express myself through prompts, essays, and journals. My high school teachers made me feel as though I was an accomplished writer beyond some of my peers. Looking back on it now, and having knowledge on the different approaches to composition, you can probably identify for yourself the conflicting approaches that came into play; it was clear that my professor held a formalist ideal, while my high school teachers encouraged expressivism. The two different approaches set me up, making me feel like I couldnt write at all. At the time, the one thing I did feel I learned was how to write a pretty decent five paragraph essay. However, when I entered the first year of my undergrad, I was in for quite a surprise. In my Approaches to Literary Studies course, I was really scared for my first paper because I couldnt help but to look back on my previous writing experiences, remembering the huge red marks exclaiming, AWKWARD. To my pleasant surprise, I actually got an A on the paper and some nice feedback about positive areas, as well as some areas of improvement. As I progressed through each English course, I found that most of my professors didnt mind my writing at all; however, it didnt solve the mystery for me: What was I doing right in high school, wrong in Composition 101, and right in college? I had yet to piece the puzzle together. Having my first teacher do different grammar lessons with us, stressing over the sentence level, and concentration on formation helped me to organize my writing in a more efficient manner; however, her method also discouraged me because I felt like I wasnt good enough and for every assignment that followed, I was filled with dread and anxiety over starting it, putting it together, handing it in, and waiting for the red marks to pop out before my eyes when it was placed on my desk. On the other hand, having A papers all the time wasnt as helpful to me either because I never knew what I was doing right, or what I was doing wrong. My assumption, and from what Ive gathered from my previous papers, is that my professors focused on content

Reichard 7 more than they did on structure, grammar, and punctuation. Looking back through the comments, I saw that most of them draw on the examples Ive provided and the comments, arguments, and illustrations Ive made about the text. As a student, Ive come to appreciate the professors who were particularly hard on my writing skills and challenged my structure, grammar, and punctuation because that was obviously the area in which I struggled in. Expressivism wasnt difficult for me because I understood somewhere along the line that writing can be fun if you genuinely believe and care about what youre writing about. As a teacher, I realize that students need to feel this desire to write because if theres no desire to learn, then theres no room for teaching. In 1984, George Hillocks was published in the American Journal of Education for his research in the various modes of writing instruction. Hillocks researched the various pedagogical methods of composition and outlined what worked and what failed. According to his research, Hillocks found that the formal approach to composition, undoubtedly fails. Hillocks states, The study of traditional school grammar (i.e., the definition of parts of speech, the parsing of sentences, etc.) has no effect on the raising quality of student writing . . . . School boards, administrators, and teachers who impose the systematic study of traditional school grammar on their students over lengthy periods of time in the name of teaching writing do them a gross disservice that should not be tolerated by anyone concerned with the effective teaching of good writing (What Works in Teaching Composition 537). Hillocks suggests that if teachers are going to teach grammar, they should teach it through real writing, rather than skill and drill worksheets and repetitious lessons on SAE. In addition, Hillocks proves that the expressivist method is not much more effective. He comments that although it is a better means for teaching grammar, it is less effect than any other focus of instruction examined (Hillocks 537).

Reichard 8 Disproving both the two most widely used approaches to teaching composition, Hillocks leaves educators at a place of uncertainty. However, he does suggest that educators take systematic approaches to teaching writing, using instructional techniques that can be evaluated on whether or not they are effective in the classroom (Hillocks 540). Getting students involved is the key. Whether thats through pictures and captions, creative stories, poems, songs, even words that describe themselves, their best friends, family members, pets, anything, and anyone! Getting students writing is what its all about. If we can get them to write, we can help them where they need it along the way, using all four of the compositional pedagogies. Reflecting back as a student and now as an educator, its critical to mark the purpose of writing in education. If our concentration, as educators, is to focus on the formalist approach just so our students can be advanced in Standard American English and gain more funding for our districts and status for our nation by excelling in the standardized tests, I think we are missing the mark. The goal of writing in education should be to help our students progress and excel in the ability to express what theyre feeling and thinking through not only writing and creating, but also speech, and the reading and understanding of texts. As teachers, we need to be sure that our students are aware of the fact that there is no right way. Standard American English is just another form of language and it is subject to change depending on its native speakers. Because of that, our writing will always have to adjust depending on what were writing about and who were writing for. But the only way to grow is if we encourage our kids to just write, no matter what it is, always encourage them to keep going because thats the only path to learning.

Reichard 9 Works Cited Covino, William A. "Rhetorical Pedagogy" Comp. Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick. A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 37-53. Print. Elbow, Peter. "A Method for Teaching Writing." College English 30.2 (1968): 115-25. JSTOR. National Council of Teachers of English. Web. 14 Jan. 2010. Emig, J. Inquiry Paradigms and Writing. College Composition and Communication 33 (1982): 64-75. Print. Fulkerson, Richard. "Four Philosophies of Composition." Comp. Susan Miller. The Norton Book of Composition Studies. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2009. 430-35. Print. Hillocks, George Jr. What Works in Teaching Composition. Comp. Susan Miller. The Norton Book of Composition Studies. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2009. 515-544.