Response to 5/5 readings

Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century
Richard Fulkerson

When I started reading this, I assumed that Fulkerson would take a pretty gloomy view on the state of composition pedagogy, and the debate thereof. In his introduction, he expresses the motivation behind writing this was “frustration”.

However, after this initial negativity, Fulkerson appears to refrain from pessimistic language when chronicling the past decade’s developments in composition. One quote from Fulkerson that I thought odd was his statement that “It’s important to emphasize that in CSS the course aim is not ‘improved writing’ but ‘liberation’ from dominant discourse” (Fulkerson 660) Uh, why can’t we do both? Does liberation from dominant discourse necessarily mean that the resulting writing will be bad?

Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories
James Berlin

Berlin’s essay was incredibly helpful in understanding the origins and applications of composition pedagogy. Berlin describes Neo-Aristotelians (Classicists), Positivist (Current-Traditionalists), Neo-Platonists (Expressionists) and New Rhetoricians. Seems like everything is new and shiny, eh?

One of the reasons I love Berlin so much is his honesty. He comes right out and says “My reasons for presenting this analysis are not altogether disinterested. I am convinced that the pedagogical approach of the New Rhetoricians is the most intelligent and most practical alternative available, serving in every way the best interests of our students” (Berlin 766)

Neo-Aristotelians believe that truth is inherent from the senses; the main issue is communicating this through the limits of language. Positivists hide beneath the shield of “scientific truth”, which reminded me of earlier readings discussing how research defined fields of learning. Unlike neo-Aristotelians, neo-Platonists do not believe that truth is inherent from the senses, as the world is undependable. Instead, they seek the truth inside, a truth that cannot be communicated or taught. New Rhetoricians rely on communication and discourse to discover truth.

Post-Process “Pedagogy”
Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch

Breuch writes that“[p]ost process scholarship is shortchanged by the continued emphasis on process in that the broader implications of post-process theory have very little to do with process […] That is, process as it is cast by post-process scholarship is the scapegoat in an argument to forward postmodern and anti-foundationalist perspectives that are critical to post-process theory” (Breuch 98)

One of Breuch’s main points is that post-process theorists are undermining their own efforts by defining themselves in opposition to the process theory. Of all the post-process theorists that Breuch discusses, I found Thomas Kent to be the most persuasive, in certain respects. As Breuch says, “Kent suggests that writing is not a system or process and therefore cannot be taught as such. Consequently, he does not suggest that teaching writing is impossible; he suggests that teaching writing as a system is impossible” (Breuch 101). I also liked Irene Ward’s functional dialogism, which seems to correlate with Berlin’s much loved New Rhetoricians.

Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle

Downs and Wardle envision a freshman writing course that focuses on “improving students’ understanding of writing, rhetoric, language, and literacy” (552). Although I have yet to teach ENG 101 or 102, I will be next semester. As a result, I found this article insightful and far-reaching in its ideas. As Downs and Wardle point out, “good” academic writing is not universal across various field, and what a student learns in ENG 101 and 102 may not transfer to other classes.

The authors’ pedagogy relating to FYC would seem to prepare a student better for writing in many different contexts. I think that this type of FYC would be much better suited for non-English majors, as well as being more feasible than having major specific required FYCs.