As a class, we have navigated three weeks of readings and lectures related to theories of composition. Our class discussions have echoed many of the essays presented in our text: The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Essentially, composition instruction at any level of secondary instruction and freshman college composition "rarely accomplishes any of its announced objectives" (12).
While I found the essays included in pages 193-313 to be illuminating, there are two pieces that have helped me develop my pedagogy paragraph. I see a strong connection between Rohman and Wlecke's article "Pre-Writing" (216-227) and Macrorie's article "Telling Writing" (297-313). In both articles, the common theme for successful composition resides in the mind of the student rather than in the mind of the instructor. "Writing is an art of combination of words which fulfills the expectations of a formal design in our heads" (224); Most English teachers have been trained to correct students' writing, not to read it" (297). The emphasis and failure of composition programs have focused on the mechanics of writing i.e. grammar, punctuation, and spelling rather than the content. A successful piece of writing according to Macrorie is one which is written with honesty and "An honest writer makes every word pull its weight" (300).
One final observation: I had personal experience with the issues addressed by Kitzhaber's essay "The Present State of Freshman Composition" (257-270). I taught seventh and eighth grade English in the late 60's and early 70's in Fort Collins. Because the university felt our students were poorly prepared, the Poudre R-1 School District adopted a program where "lay readers" would grade compositions produced by our students in junior high ( 7th, 8th, 9th grade). Unfortunately, I don't remember if this was also done at the high school level but feel it's safe to assume. The students produced a formal "theme" every three weeks. Since the staff had six sections of English averaging 25 students per section, the lay readers made this push possible. Each student wrote a rough draft in class and turned in a completed theme. The staff assisted students during the rough draft stage based on particular instruction. The compositions were returned to the students a week after they were handed in. Each student received a grade for mechanics and a grade for content.
The theory behind this approach was a strong writing program made possible by outside readers and prompt feed-back for the student. Also, it was felt the content portion of the grade which was subjective, would remain unbiased as the reader had no classroom contact with the student and would not be prejudiced by that student's classroom behavior, etc. It seems to me that each lay reader (who had to pass a proficiency test to be hired) was paid 25 cents per theme which was four handwritten pages in length. Unfortunately, I do not know the outcome of this approach because I moved from the area before any of my students entered the university. I do remember seeing real progress with my students in putting ideas down on paper and mastering basic mechanics. Whether their high school teachers agreed is problematic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's a great idea to separate the content from mechanics. Though they are two important aspects of writing it is hard to put one grade for both, when in most cases one is probably better than the other. Another innovative idea is the outside reader. The first essay mentioned this, and I thought it would be impossible to do, but it seems like you guys found a system that works. Do any schools still do this now?
ReplyDeleteI personally do not know of a school district that currently uses "lay readers" but I, too, would be interested in learning if this is a current practice. If, so, how is it received and what impact does it have on student writing.
ReplyDeleteI had a slightly different reaction to these essays. While I agree that composition instruction should focus on the student, I am unsure about the theory behind Rohman's and Macrorie's statements. Rohman's essay states that it is the job of a teacher to guide students on their discovery of composition. This seems, to me at least, to imply that students know how to compose and form ideas; they just need to access that knowledge. I am not sure that this is the case. While it is true that everyone know how to communicate to varying degrees, there is a more specialized knowledge involved in composing a paper that can be presented in an academic or professional forum. While I agree with Rohman in the sense that it is important for composition courses to address how students form arguments, I think that more direct instruction is required to achieve this.
ReplyDeleteI like this line you quote: "Most English teachers have been trained to correct students' writing, not to read it." I agree that this statement alludes to the overemphasis on mechanics, but I think it also underscores a piece of the American mentality. We love to focus on what's wrong with something -- suggesting how to correct it, rather that emphasizing and rejoicing in what is right. Several texts I have read this semester have suggested that in America we approach education as if it is a capitalist industrial model. By this, I mean education tries to teach the most students in the most efficient manner for the least amount of money and creating the least amount of errors. Writing instruction that overemphasizes correction and errors certainly is a part of that system.
ReplyDelete