The savior was the "communications triangle" with the text in the middle surrounded by subject-matter, listener/reader, and speaker writer. This model helped to break down a lot of the information that was presented. As the article progressed I was able to make a little bit better connection with the text. Corbett states "Let it be said, first of all, that rhetoric is an inescapable activity in our lives. Every day, we either use rhetoric or are exposed to it. Everyone living in a community with other people is inevitably a rhetorician" (24). This indeed is very true, everyone has an angle and a way whether successful or not at getting it. The reminders of rhetoric used as something negative, in the manner of propaganda, brainwashing, and even doublespeak is something that is not usually in our frame of consciousness as a form of rhetoric. Teaching these in a secondary or postsecondary English class would be a very powerful tool to show students the true power of words and it would be an excellent gateway into the instruction of the more complex forms of rhetoric.
"Current-Traditional Rhetoric" points out yet again that Hill and his cronies had incredible influence on writing at the turn of the century that unfortunately pervades writing instruction still. This makes the title all the more apropos because in my thinking what is normally current is not simultaneously traditional except when it comes to writing instruction. Through the publication and use of rhetorical textbooks Hill and Genung managed to suck the life out of writing and turn it into a formulaic, scientific process that simply cannot be used for all modes of writing. What is unfortunate is that they were able to promote this form of instruction due to the need for economic cutbacks at the college level and economic and social growth in the United States. Post Civil War caused an influx of new students and a growing middle class, the same situation occurred also after WWII reemphasizing these modes of instruction until further research was done on composition instruction in the late 60's and early 70's. Despite new research Hill and Genung's philosophies still permeate the instruction of writing at all levels. As discussed in the article when writing was found to be unacceptable a team of "experts" with no experience in the teaching of writing were brought in and because they knew nothing of the deeper elements of writing, they focused simply on the surface elements just as is the focus today. To top it off the blame was placed on the shoulders of the secondary teachers. As I read this portion, I immediately thought of NCLB, the giving of more responsibility without the necessary resources to promote and instill change. My other thought was of the raising of the bar for entry requirements to colleges that is occurring again today with the necessity of a higher GPA and higher ACT and/or SAT scores. So instead of making higher education more accessible to increase the general level of education in our country it is becoming less accessible.
"The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse" by Robert J. Connors really should be retitled the evolution of discourse because the word fall implies just that, it falls disappears. Connors writes "Even when thesis texts mentioned the modes, they were a minor consideration. Essentially, the modes were ignored to death after 1950 (452). Really Connors? I disagree, the original modes of discourse and the current thesis texts and writing have blended together into a horrific amalgam of writing instruction today. The modes never disappeared they just reinvented themselves. He goes on later to say "Their (the modes) importance in modern pedagogy is constantly diminishing, and the only teachers still making real classroom use of the modes are those out of touch with current theory"(453) the teachers are not out of touch we still have to teach the modes, take a look at the curriculum, the standards, the standardized tests that students have to take, they have to know how to make an argument and back it up, they have to be able to respond to a piece of literature both as a reader making a connection with the text and as an analyzer, they have to describe their surroundings. Wow, all of this sounds so familiar. Yes, I do agree that writing is a bit more focused on the writer's outcome rather than just the classification (454) however as I am unfortunately finding out week after week in these readings is that composition just simply has not changed that much in the grand scheme of things, despite the changing needs of the students and the influx of technology, schools as well as the government mandates are way behind.
The complexities of discourse are brought to the forefront in James Kinneavy's "The Basic Aims of Discourse" as he presents the histories, theories, and philosophies on discourse through the ages and excellently cross references them all. He shows that the basic aims of discourse are not really basic at all. They are basic in that comparisons can easily be made throughout time however the difficulty lies in how can we as educators actually teach all of these things productively and thoroughly. His comparison "Windows, like language, can be used expressively, persuasively, referentially, and esthetically" gets to the heart of the matter. Writing is open or should be. The ways and modes in which we can instruct writing are virtually limitless. So why, as all the articles have displayed, are we pigeonholed into a few very structured and limiting categories? District and government requirements, curriculum, knowledge of the instructor and students, and time are all factors that have led up to the point where teaching composition is today. (Or I could just blame Hill again!) What I really liked about Kinneavy's article is that he pointed out that the lack of all encompassing writing instruction is occurring throughout all levels of the education system and that he specifically pointed which of the aims of not being taught. What I really want to read is how to achieve what he is asking realistically within the context that each of us teach in.
2 comments:
Ashly, you make a number of observations in this response that are both insightful and eloquent (in a plain-speech kind of way). I enjoyed reading lines like "Through the publication and use of rhetorical textbooks Hill and Genung managed to suck the life out of writing and turn it into a formulaic, scientific process that simply cannot be used for all modes of writing." Right on! You're another one who I'm glad is taking this course. Remember that the modern field of writing studies is still relatively young, emerging in the late 1960s. Many people who grew up learning to write in the current-traditional paradigm are still around and still control education, particularly in English departments and K-12. Add to that the historical marginalization of writing instruction, and there are many people who still don't want to listen to contemporary approaches for all sorts of reasons. But now that the modes are dead (in theory at least), we'll spend the rest of the semester talking about more effective ways to teach writing....and it will take informed individuals like you to work these ideas into K-12, and postsecondary instruction. (But be careful; the current-traditionalists are everywhere trying to squash progress.)
Dr. J
Thanks for the props, they are much appreciated! As for the way I express myself, I have never been much of a belles lettres kind of girl:) As I experience daily, education is a slow moving entity when it comes to changing ideas and thoughts. I am happy to hear that we'll be talking about the useful ways of teaching writing and I will heed your warning, I do believe there are some current-traditionalists in my English department. Yikes!
Post a Comment