“Language is a mode of action rather than a mode of knowledge.” Words said by Kenneth Burke on what impacts invention. Prior to reading these articles, I always knew rhetoric played a large role in composition. In fact, as a composition instructor myself, I have always emphasized the role rhetoric plays when creating writing. I have known rhetoric to traditionally involve five standard tenants: 1) the author 2) the purpose 3) the audience 4) context 5) topic. Upon reading Burke, I was fascinated to learn of the Pentad as a strategy for the interpretation of motivation for actions in text. Essentially, Burke emphasizes invention that includes dramatism (language as symbolic action). The five interpretive terms he uses are as follows: act, agency, agent, scene, purpose, and later adding attitude. Looking at invention from this perspective suddenly made sense to me. Rhetoric essentially is all around us as emphasized in all of the assigned articles. In the article Issues of the Nature, Purpose, and Epistemology of Rhetorical Invention in the Twentieth Century, we find a list of contributors to the art of rhetorical invention. What I gathered from the majority of the contributing scholars is that they all challenged the notion of logic and certainty. These theorists believed that rhetoric was vital because it focused on language as thought and a means to understand. They posited that the process of questioning is important in order to reach new meanings and new levels of knowledge. As McKeon points out, invention is “the art of discovering new arguments and uncovering new things by argument.” The more I read about the theory behind rhetoric, I found myself agreeing more and more with it in regards to writing. The articles point out that traditionally, there really wasn’t a place for rhetoric in the Freshman English class. Typically, rhetoric was to be found under the communications department. It isn’t to say that rhetoric did not belong in the communications classroom, but we must consider rhetoric as language and the psychology of language as whole whether it be verbal or written. As Corbett defines rhetoric “the art or discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience, whether that audience is made up of one person or a group of persons” If this is the case, why then did it take so long to incorporate it into the freshman composition classrooms? Why is it still not being utilized in freshman composition courses? What is it exactly do we want our students writing about? The article states the Mid-Twentieth Century found Freshman English to focus on the application of rhetoric and not the discipline itself. But I actually wonder how instructors can only focus on the application and not the discipline? What was actually being produced and actually measured?
According to the Lauer text, many of the freshman compositions focused on the structures/patterns of writing rather than on rhetoric (narration, cause-effect, etc). I suppose my question could be answered by referencing Rohman’s point “All we have done, in fact, is to give them (students) standards by which to judge the goodness or badness of their finished effort. We haven’t really taught them how to make that effort.” Rhetoric provides that opportunity for students to move beyond the finished effort and focus more on how they got there. As I teach my freshman composition course, I find many students battling with always having to perfect the final product and focusing on what the professor wants to see. I find myself frequently reminding the students to continue to question and establish a state of inquiry for their potential writings. As Lauer points out about the heuristic procedure: “a series of questions or operations to guide inquiry in order to retrieve relevant information, draw attention to missing information, and prepare for intuition. I feel, I often lose that battle. How and when will this change?
Campbell’s focus is that of persuasion within writing and speaking. On the other end of the bickering spectrum of rhetoric, we have George Campbell and his focus on the manipulation of language in order to meet a desired need. Campbell argues that “rhetoric that relies on induction for arriving at truth is not concerned with brining appropriate arguments to bear on the issue at hand.” He believes that rhetoric acts as a sort of road block when it comes to discovering truth. He believes to seek truth one must observe. He states that rhetoric is concerned with “shaping the message.” Although this may be the case, I would like to believe, and I certainly hope I am partially right, that observation does in fact play a role within rhetoric. We create questions through rhetoric and in order for a writer to answer them they must begin by being an observer. Would it be safe to say some of the best writers might in fact be the best observers?
To dove tail off of my previous point, or Campbell’s I should say, is the Corbett article; here we find the art of persuasion within rhetoric in advertising. I actually laughed a bit when I read this article because of my fascination with the advertising companies manipulating language in order to meet a desired need: to buy their product. I suppose I have an ambivalent perception about these advertising companies because on one end, I highly respect their ability to utilize rhetoric and manipulate language in a way that is almost artful. On the other end, I almost see it as being irresponsible with the power that language has. Nevertheless, rhetoric according to Corbett is definitely present and can be broken down line by line, including any images. Rhetoric is creation for whatever purpose or discipline. It is the way we communicate and in essence create a community of sorts. I believe as an instructor of freshman composition, it is my job to not only focus on the traditional methods of writing instruction, but to also include the discipline of rhetoric. How can we create without motivation?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Composition History- Blog for Week 2 Readings
Composition History
The assigned readings for this consisted of a variety of topics. However, the main focus was the evolution of composition studies, specifically at the college freshman level. The article Writing Into the 21st Century, lists some specific research questions within the study that I feel represent the crux of the development of composition studies. Some of these questions include the following: What are the general problems being investigated by contemporary writing researchers? Which of the various problems dominate recent writing research, and which are not as prominent? What population age groups are prominent in recent writing research? What is the relationship between population age groups and problems under investigation? and What methodologies are being used in research on writing? Although researchers address various questions, the same questions is no doubt being addressed “what are the current trends in research on writing?”
Composition studies at the college level were a response to the “crisis” of the 1970’s. Because many universities at the time adopted open enrollment, many of the universities discovered the decline in academic success rates. The conversation on what the nature of the composition course should look like took on many avenues; however, in regards to relying on the research to define what the composition course should look like needed to rely on a solid theoretical framework, which at the time, was non-existent. What developed were four main schools of thought that entailed the writer, reality, audience and language. The main focus for developing composition studies included fostering thinking and creativity through the written word. So, why composition studies? Due to the open enrollment newly adopted at the universities, there was a need to distinguish between the better students and the good students. Thus, colleges allowed for the emergence of composition courses through the English department. During the 1980’s, new empirical based methods combined with theoretical conceptions and thus refined composition studies. Refereed journals became more prominent as the need for composition studies research evolved. Composition was treated as a completely separate entity like literature, linguistics, and general writing.
The question is then raised, what sort of content was found within these traditional composition courses. During the formalist period in 1950, much of the composition content focused on the traditional five paragraph format. Oddly, it is much of what we see instructed in today’s classrooms at the high school level. However, as more research developed, there was a response to this formalist period by developing a New Critical premise: The focus was to read and analyze text, not just write. This new Structuralist movement shifted the focus from the overall product of writing to focusing more on the process of writing. This new focus was aimed at revising and drafting rather than just focus on the structured type of writing. Ideally, one can look at this movement as getting away from writing as being an individual task to a more social process. This movement resulted into more process than anything else. Writing was to be looked at as an act that added to society and to bodies of knowledge and literature.
One other factor that was touched upon was the cognitive to the socio-cognitive. I find this to still be true of today’s composition students. The way students approach writing ultimately affects the way they construct their writing. It seems there will always be the stigma of the perception about writing will determine their process and overall product of their composition. With this being said, the natural question, then, is what should be taught in the English composition courses. Now that we are in the 21st century, it would seem that composition instruction and curriculum should have evolved from the formalist era. However, many researchers have found that not much has changed in composition instruction. Many of the composition courses include the same components or tenets that of high school curriculum. Students are generally required to write an essay, they are introduced and drilled on grammar, and they generally read some literature that provides an example of the types of writings in which they should be modeling. It is argued that the intellectual level in which composition is taught is relatively low. Standards are typically lowered because the thought is that students needing composition instruction at the freshman level need more assistance, especially with the open enrollment colleges and universities. Composition courses, according to researchers, should be a bit more rigorous, but specific initiatives should be taken in order for this to happen. Kitzhaber suggests that two main changes occur: 1) Help high schools in with the teaching of composition. This could take place through better teacher education and refine curriculum. 2) Completely restructure English composition programs at the college level.
The 21st century brings on many resources, specifically technological resources, which could be used to restructure the way composition instruction is practiced. Yancey suggest that different mediums be used for making writing real to students through “circulation.” Yancey states “As they movie from medium to medium, they consider what they move forward, what they leave out, what they add, and for each of these write a reflection in which they consider how the medium itself shapes what they create. (p 314) A shift and change in composition instruction is essentially the theme across the readings. Like anything else there is a history, but it is important to understand that time and context change and it is necessary for things to adapt. In this case, the need to adapt and utilize tools to make this change occur is something that definitely needs to occur.
The assigned readings for this consisted of a variety of topics. However, the main focus was the evolution of composition studies, specifically at the college freshman level. The article Writing Into the 21st Century, lists some specific research questions within the study that I feel represent the crux of the development of composition studies. Some of these questions include the following: What are the general problems being investigated by contemporary writing researchers? Which of the various problems dominate recent writing research, and which are not as prominent? What population age groups are prominent in recent writing research? What is the relationship between population age groups and problems under investigation? and What methodologies are being used in research on writing? Although researchers address various questions, the same questions is no doubt being addressed “what are the current trends in research on writing?”
Composition studies at the college level were a response to the “crisis” of the 1970’s. Because many universities at the time adopted open enrollment, many of the universities discovered the decline in academic success rates. The conversation on what the nature of the composition course should look like took on many avenues; however, in regards to relying on the research to define what the composition course should look like needed to rely on a solid theoretical framework, which at the time, was non-existent. What developed were four main schools of thought that entailed the writer, reality, audience and language. The main focus for developing composition studies included fostering thinking and creativity through the written word. So, why composition studies? Due to the open enrollment newly adopted at the universities, there was a need to distinguish between the better students and the good students. Thus, colleges allowed for the emergence of composition courses through the English department. During the 1980’s, new empirical based methods combined with theoretical conceptions and thus refined composition studies. Refereed journals became more prominent as the need for composition studies research evolved. Composition was treated as a completely separate entity like literature, linguistics, and general writing.
The question is then raised, what sort of content was found within these traditional composition courses. During the formalist period in 1950, much of the composition content focused on the traditional five paragraph format. Oddly, it is much of what we see instructed in today’s classrooms at the high school level. However, as more research developed, there was a response to this formalist period by developing a New Critical premise: The focus was to read and analyze text, not just write. This new Structuralist movement shifted the focus from the overall product of writing to focusing more on the process of writing. This new focus was aimed at revising and drafting rather than just focus on the structured type of writing. Ideally, one can look at this movement as getting away from writing as being an individual task to a more social process. This movement resulted into more process than anything else. Writing was to be looked at as an act that added to society and to bodies of knowledge and literature.
One other factor that was touched upon was the cognitive to the socio-cognitive. I find this to still be true of today’s composition students. The way students approach writing ultimately affects the way they construct their writing. It seems there will always be the stigma of the perception about writing will determine their process and overall product of their composition. With this being said, the natural question, then, is what should be taught in the English composition courses. Now that we are in the 21st century, it would seem that composition instruction and curriculum should have evolved from the formalist era. However, many researchers have found that not much has changed in composition instruction. Many of the composition courses include the same components or tenets that of high school curriculum. Students are generally required to write an essay, they are introduced and drilled on grammar, and they generally read some literature that provides an example of the types of writings in which they should be modeling. It is argued that the intellectual level in which composition is taught is relatively low. Standards are typically lowered because the thought is that students needing composition instruction at the freshman level need more assistance, especially with the open enrollment colleges and universities. Composition courses, according to researchers, should be a bit more rigorous, but specific initiatives should be taken in order for this to happen. Kitzhaber suggests that two main changes occur: 1) Help high schools in with the teaching of composition. This could take place through better teacher education and refine curriculum. 2) Completely restructure English composition programs at the college level.
The 21st century brings on many resources, specifically technological resources, which could be used to restructure the way composition instruction is practiced. Yancey suggest that different mediums be used for making writing real to students through “circulation.” Yancey states “As they movie from medium to medium, they consider what they move forward, what they leave out, what they add, and for each of these write a reflection in which they consider how the medium itself shapes what they create. (p 314) A shift and change in composition instruction is essentially the theme across the readings. Like anything else there is a history, but it is important to understand that time and context change and it is necessary for things to adapt. In this case, the need to adapt and utilize tools to make this change occur is something that definitely needs to occur.
