How to Write Properly; Or, What We Deal with as Writing Instructors

http://andyhayes.com/announcing-the-red-pen-review

Our students come to our classes expecting us to make them great writers so that when they leave our classrooms they will be fit for any writing task they are ever handed. Now that’s a tall order if you really think about it. Why not teach students writing skills that they can use later on in whatever field they choose to enter? The sentiments are good and certainly there are valiant writing teachers out there trying to do just that - teach transferrable writing skills to their students. I agree that there needs to be a foundational level of writing (Basic Writing if you will) that will develop into area specific writing skills later on in our students’ careers. But I think there needs to be something more, somewhere we are missing something crucial to writing instruction.

Perhaps, Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) is the solution but we need to see it on a larger scale to really analyze the effectiveness of that approach. As David Russell mentioned in “American Origins of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Movement” (1992), “Instead of viewing writing as a complex and continuously developing response to a specialized, text-based, discourse community, highly embedded in the differentiated practices of that community, educators [had come] to see it as a set of generalizable, mechanical “skills” independent of disciplinary knowledge” (153). Writing was seen as more of “skill”, that once learned, remained unchanged yet applicable to every context. 

Sadly, there are still many in the academic community who believe that writing is simply a tool that one can learn in a course or two at the beginning of a college career (or arguably earlier in secondary education institutions). This is exactly the basis that WAC combats. As Charles Bazerman wrote in his essay “The Problem of Writing Knowledge” (1988), “...academic assignments bear a loose relationship to the writing done by mature members of the disciplines” (502). This is a relatively new sentiment that has really come to light with the WAC movement. Instead of viewing writing as a stagnant means of communication that can be easily mastered, Bazerman and many proponents of WAC, emphasize the importance of writing being discipline specific.

So wait...what does this mean for us writing teachers? I do no propose that we all loose our jobs of course. Rather, I think that basic writing skills can be taught (to an extent) but beyond our classrooms, students need to continue learning about writing within their disciplines. This is essentially the premise of WAC. There needs to be communication across the curriculum to teach writing that will benefit our students.

So how do we teach basic writing then? That is still being eagerly awaited by many writing instructors, including myself. Our students are still coming to our classes expecting us to magically mold them into convincing writers but our views of writing are shifting, leaving them staring at red-covered papers in despair. I propose that we need to teach our students that writing instruction does not end with us, but instead, they must continue to grow and learn about writing in their discipline specific courses. In that case, our job is to teach them basic writing and the tools that they will need to evaluate written texts within their respective disciplines whether those criteria of writing are specifically taught or not. “What a text is must take into account how people create it and how people use it,” (Bazerman 503). So rather than prescribing set “rules” for how to write, we need to engage our students in critical thinking  that applies rhetorical awareness to the texts they encounter. Joseph Williams in “The Phenomenology of Error” (1981), described that when we approach a freshman example of writing, we come to the table expecting to find errors. With that frame of mind, we undoubtedly find errors (420). So what is an error?

I think that students need to get more credit than they are given in their writing. Currently, we are asking them to make writing moves that most likely they have not had to do as of yet in their college careers. We lecture to them and give them those activities that we spend hours planning but sometimes I think those things fall short of their mark. When we grade, we still find those irritating “errors”. Their papers consequently get handed back to them covered in red ink or the computerized equivalent. “[T]he BW [basic writing] student both resents and resists his vulnerability as a writer. He is aware that he leaves a trail of errors behind him when he writes. He can usually think of little else while he is writing. But he doesn’t know what to do about it” (Shaughnessy 391). Williams proposed that we need to see these errors not as isolated issues restricted to the page but as “a flawed verbal transaction between a writer and a reader”(415) because oftentimes, the writer (the student) is not able to think about all the “rules” that he or she is supposed to know and consequently gets bogged down by whether or not those “rules” are followed properly and not necessarily by whether meaning is clear. 

Don’t get me wrong, those “rules” are there for a reason but as Williams concluded in his essay, those “rules” are also meant to be broken. Williams ended his essay with a section asking his readers to try to remember all the “errors” that he committed throughout the length of his essay. A really poignant approach to this issue of “errors” because it asks us what really is the importance of some of those rules given that we can read his essay and most likely not remember many (if any!) errors at all. He message is quite clear and we might not even notice that he made any “errors” at all if he didn’t ask us to evaluate his writing at the end of his piece. Thus, we can come to some sort of conclusion that at least questions the good of our “rules” that we seem to prize so much in writing (maybe because we don’t have much else to cling to as writing instructors?). 

So to conclude myself, WAC has the beginnings of the general movement that we need to see in writing instruction. Writing is not a formulaic approach to exchanging meaning but it is an exchange of meaning and its effectiveness is dependent upon both the writer and the reader. Writing is discipline specific, especially when put to use in specific discipline contexts that expect certain writing features that general writing instructors are not privy to. I think that a lot of our work ahead of us as writing instructors lies in teaching our students how to negotiate those different writing contexts and giving them the rhetorical strategies to chose deliberately how and when they adhere to “rules” and the consequences of those choices in their own writing and the writing of others. Writing instruction cannot be left to us alone but also must carry over to discipline instructors because they will be the real gatekeepers to the discipline expectations that our students enter. We have to pass on the knowledge that will give our students the tools to evaluate their discipline writing and learn from those examples. 

Do not despair, writing instructors! The task is daunting but we will continue to grow with our students. We will find a way to work with other disciplines to create an effective approach to teaching writing but in the mean time, strive towards rhetorical awareness and critical thinking strategies that will help our students become aware of the moves that are made within writing to communicate effectively between writer and reader.

Works Cited

Bazerman, Charles. “The Problem of Writing Knowledge.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1988. 502-514. Print.

Russell, David. “American Origins of the Writing-across-the Curriculum.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1992. 151-170. Print.

Shaughnessey, Mina. “Introduction to Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1977. 387-396. Print.

Williams, Joseph. “The Phenomenology of Error.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981. 414-429. Print.

Image borrowed from:

http://andyhayes.com/announcing-the-red-pen-review

The Results are In: The Issue of Grading

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/10/20/the_trouble_with_early_voting_343810.html

It could be said that grading is one of the hardest parts of teaching a writing course and arguably one of the most dreaded aspects as well. We create those amazing lesson plans, teach those spectacular class periods, and then end up with a mountainous pile of student papers to grade. What are we to do with them? How are we supposed to grade?

Perhaps to see where we are going, we first need to take a step back and look at where we are coming from with our grading. Kathleen Blake Yancey wrote “Looking Back as We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing Assessment” (1999) in which she offered her readers an overview of the three stages of writing assessment. In short, “During the first wave (1950-1970), writing assessment took the form of objective tests; during the second (1970-1986), it took the form of the holistically scored essay; and the current wave, the third (1986-present), it has taken the form of portfolio assessment and of programmatic assessment,” (Yancey 1187).  Yancey used two terms to describe these waves and their focus in assessment: validity and reliability (1187). 

As she described, the first wave was focused on validity. Is the information correct? A necessary point of course, but much was left lacking in the area of response given the standardized methods of the assessment (i.e. testing). The second wave was focused on reliability. Again, a necessary component of writing, but this aspect focused on consistency as opposed to measurability assessed through validity. 

The third wave, and consequently our current wave, is a combination of both approaches from the previous waves. We now focus on validity and reliability through portfolio assessment. It is our aim, through grading, to provide students with meaningful response to their writing so they may improve their skills (at least that is the intended goal). Oftentimes, we see this goal fall short of the mark. Students take the surface comments and leave the comments based on argument and structure. So where do we lose them?

Richard Haswell took up this line of conversation in his article “The Complexities of Writing; Or, Looking for Shortcuts via the Road of Excess” (2006). As teachers, we want to minimize the lengthiness that is the process of grading (for sanity purposes, of course). Almost counter to that aim, our students want responses from their teachers that will improve their writing. Haswell proposed that “Discourse activity theory has added the complication that as all human practices, teacher-student interactions, including teacher response to student writing, are mediated by cultural tools, especially language but not exclusively language,” (1264). This perspective is a potential means of assessing the lack of communication and a reevaluation of the common-grounds between our goals as teachers and the needs of our students. Our human practices and cultural tools differ so we need to see our goals (as teachers) in writing assessment differently to take into account the actual needs of our students in conjunction with what we value they need to know. So the question stands: How do we cross the divide to reach our students?

Part of this negotiation that we need to have in writing assessment is a reevaluation of our expectations and theirs. According to Paul du Guy (1997) and elaborated upon by Haswell, there are five “activity nodes” which interrelate and shape our language practices: consumption, identity, representation, regulation, and production ( Haswell 1264). 

                 

http://ctcs587.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-circuit-of-culture.html

Using the above image of interrelationships within culture, we can start to dissect influences writing and thus writing assessment. All writing response is a regulation of some idea (Haswell 1265). Students consume (consumption) specific types of writing response more readily than others (i.e. Surface remarks versus structural comments) (Haswell 1270). Production plays out in the amount of writing students produce and consequently how much teachers have to grade (Haswell 1265). Representation is apparent in both teachers and students thus forming expectations based on those characteristics which finally ties to identity which is how we think we shape ourselves or reflect ourselves to the world (Haswell 1265). 

All components produce complicated lines of inquiry which further tangle the web of interrelationships between students and teachers, especially when it comes to writing assessment. It is through the third wave of writing assessment that we have come to really grapple with these five nodes of culture. Writing is a social act and thus writing assessment is a social act as well (Yancey 1198). 

While we do not have any answers on how best to approach this complexity that is grading, that does not mean that we are at a loss. Rather, at our current stage of writing assessment we are focusing on the portfolio. This offers us as teachers, a unique perspective into how we negotiate the culture circuit. Not only do we see the papers that our students produce but we can see into their writing process through the portfolio.

Their writing portfolios offer us a glimpse into what their composing process is along with how they approach revision and comments. Frequently students do not take all the suggestions that we offer them (specifically the argumentation and structurally focused comments), but by studying what types of comments they do take, we can better revise our own methods of grading to give them responses that they will apply to their writing. 

That being said, we cannot simply do away with comments that the students seem to disregard either. Those comments may be meant to be teaching moments. Structure and argument are integral parts of writing and are nothing to sneeze at and throw away like students tend to do. Perhaps as teachers, our mission should be to find ways to address these issues some other way besides through the disregarded comments on papers which we spend hours writing while grading. A kill two birds with one stone approach if you will. 

If students have issues with structural organization and do no understand your comments (or choose to ignore those comments) then something is being said about their needs as students that we need to address as teachers, our cultural perspectives are disconnected. A possible approach could be to take those overall comments that we might have written in the margins of their papers and create meaningful activities that will help generate better understanding for them regarding those elusive topics that they struggle with such as structure, organization, and argument strategy.

As we navigate the confusing waters of grading and writing assessment, we can keep the ideas of previous waves (validity and reliability) but there remains a need for reevaluation with the student in mind to give them the feedback they value but also those comments that they need for their writing that we view as important as teachers. Nevertheless, we must also keep in mind the teacher needs such as time dedication and teaching. There are no clear answers as to how we need to address the issue of grading but “teachers carry on,” (Haswell 1283) and we shall continue to grow with our students by bettering our writing assessment strategies.

Works Cited

Haswell, Richard. “The Complexities of Responding to Student Writing; Or, Looking for Shortcuts via the Road of Excess.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. 1262-1289. Print. 

Yancey, Kathleen. “Looking Back As We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing Assessment.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. 1186-1204. Print. 

Images borrowed from:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/10/20/the_trouble_with_early_voting_343810.html

http://ctcs587.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-circuit-of-culture.html

Melting Pot or Salad Bowl?

http://www.iwallpapersfive.com/salad-bowl-hd-widescreen-wallpapers.html/salad-bowl-hd-widescreen-wallpapers

You might be asking what a salad bowl has to do with composition but I assure you, it does have a purpose. In fact, I propose that the image of a salad bowl has a very useful purpose as a potential metaphor representing what a classroom should look like. Much of what we do in the classroom is directed towards teaching our students what is good writing and “how to write well” but many in the field of composition are questioning how we approach those aspects of our classrooms.

At this point in our country’s life, we have developed this image of the “melting pot” where all cultures have come together to create the ideal “American”, but what does that really mean? Kris Rutten and Ronald Soetaert wrote on this topic of ideology in their article “Rhetoric, Citizenship, and Cultural Literacy” (2013). They propose that we rethink the connections between education, democracy, and citizenship. Their aim is to build a broader view of contemporary education to encompass a “contextualized” understanding of civic and cultural literacy (Rutten and Soetaert). Literacy and illiteracy (indeed, even those terms) are built upon ideologies. As writing instructors, we then need to teach our students how to negotiate those ideologies to shape their knowledge and attitudes to become informed citizens. 

Part of this monumental task of reformation has to begin at the source. Our ideologies, as Americans, are built upon the ideal of the American dream where everyone is the same and accepted. We need to break from that idea (and indeed, we are beginning to see this happen) - we are not a melting pot but rather, we are a salad bowl. Colonialism is a major perpetrator in this struggle we are encountering now in our classrooms. 

Victor Villanueva Jr. engaged with the struggle of colonialism and outdated misconceptions of culture in his article “Maybe Colony: And Still Another Critique of the Comp Community” (1997). He did not propose a solution to the issue of how we should address colonial pressure versus a more diverse perspective of culture but he did put out a call asking teachers to rethink how we approach writing and what we pass on to our students because our instruction can perpetuate hurtful ideologies that do not allow for growth and understanding between dissimilar people. Villanueva wrote, “What we need, I’d say, is a greater consciousness of the pervasiveness of the ethnocentricity from which we wish to break away,” (992). Cultural literacy, as described by Rutten and Soetaert, is an integral part of what we need to teach our students when we teach them writing. Villanueva calls for collaborative deliberation for a solution to this ongoing issue in our classrooms. 

Colonialism forces an unrealistic similarity upon people which drowns out their cultural differences, it pushes the melting pot metaphor upon cultural minorities to “normalize” their identities to conform to the “American” identity. We are seeing a shift from this deceiving preconception of what it means to be an American in many classrooms with the attempt to allow students to explore their cultures through narratives, yet still we see traces of the past colonialism seeping into their writing practices. Cultural literacy is the key to how we should change this harmful ideology but like Villanueva says, “It’s just that the way has not quite been found,” (997). 

Perhaps an approach we can take together as writing teachers to rethink writing pedagogy to be inclusive of cultural differences and to build a beautiful, cohesive salad is to take the advice of Ann Berthoff. In “Learning the Uses of Chaos” (1980), she wrote, “I believe we can best teach the composing process by conceiving of it as a continuum of making meaning, by seeing writing as analogous to all those processes by which we make sense of the world,” (Berthoff 648).  We view the world and what happens through the lens of our identity and what has shaped us. Thus colonialism and culture are major parts of how we compose. By forcing students to write using old methodologies that do not allow for personal interpretation and prescribe a set formulaic approach to composing, we are not allowing them to objectively see the world and make sense of it using the tools that they need to actually understand. We are shaped by our culture and the underlying ideologies associated with that culture, and so by not allowing our students to make meaningful connections that integrate their own identities with the way they write, we are hindering their progress and ultimately placing them at a disadvantage.

Like Villanueva, I believe that we need to reevaluate how we teach writing. Berthoff proposes that we engage with chaos.  She views chaos as a necessary tool to viewing the world and the writing process because “it creates the need for [...]dialogue,” (Berthoff 650). I think a potential application of her idea of chaos could be an answer, or the kernel of a solution, to how we need to respond to the cultural aspect of composition.

By asking questions in our classrooms that engage in meaningful dialogue between students we can foster a better understanding of where composition instruction needs to go in the future to better acknowledge culture and individual perspective. Personally, I think a good step in finding the solution is to ask questions of our students like those proposed by Berthoff. For example,  asking our students “How does it change the meaning if I put it this way?” (Berthoff 650) when they are revising their writing. It is not a solution in and of itself, but rather I think it will yield conversations that will help us, as teachers, work together to find a solution and build an inclusive, cohesive community of writers - a salad bowl if you will. The students will engage in critical thinking that will push the borders of their constricted writing practices to question alternative points of view. In essence, this is what we need to do as writing teachers as well because “the classroom is where theory and practice intersect,” (Rutten and Soetaert). 

Works Cited

Berthoff, Ann. “Learning the Uses of Chaos.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1980. 647-651. Print. 

Rutten, Kris and Ronald Soetaert. “Rhetoric, Citizenship, and Cultural Literacy.” CLCWeb:

Comparative Literature and Culture 15.3 (2013). Web. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2242&context=clcweb

Villanueva Jr., Victor. “Maybe a Colony: And Still Another Critique of the Comp Community.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997. 991-998. Print.

Image borrowed from:

http://www.iwallpapersfive.com/salad-bowl-hd-widescreen-wallpapers.html/salad-bowl-hd-widescreen-wallpapers