In the battle of the pedagogies raging across the domain of academic debate, it's pretty clear that there's been one winner so far. In fact, it's hard to call the debate about the value of certain pedagogies vs others a battle at all; it's more like a siege. No matter how the many theories out there conflict with each other, they all seem to agree on one thing: the most prevalent theory of composition instruction nationwide is Current-Traditional pedagogy, and it needs to be modified, if not phased out all together. The disdain for Current-Traditional pedagogy is understandable on many levels, and there are several common complaints: it's too prescriptive, it doesn't teach students how to develop a voice, it limits students' potential as composers by restricting them to certain structures, it handicaps the revision skills of less experienced writers, etc. All of these are valid complaints, and all of them can be applied to this book, but only under a certain circumstance, I think. If this book were to used as the sole textbook, or source of instruction, for a college (or even high school) composition course, then I'd have a gigantic problem. If, however, it were used as an early instruction guide, for students who are just beginning to learn the difficult craft of composition, I really wouldn't have a problem with its use. I firmly believe young students should be taught these basic rules in late elementary and middle school, because there is some value in them.
As I said, there is some good in this textbook, as my colleagues have previously stated. Firstly, I can certainly get behind the qualities of brevity and clarity in my writing, as talked about in Josh's essay. These two qualities are the most important to me when I compose, so I'm completely behind having that be the focus of the advice presented. The first chapter on “elementary rules of usage” (Strunk 1) is very, very basic stuff, and hard to criticize for me. There isn't a single piece of advice in there that I necessarily disagree with; it's good advice, and stuff that I was taught very early in my student career. In fact, reading it made me think, “Is it really necessary to put this stuff in a book?” Of course it is, as not everybody takes the basic grammatical rules in here for granted as I, a more experienced writer, do, but I had the moment nevertheless. In the second chapter, “Elementary Principles of Composition” (10), Strunk once again gives some solid advice, that would probably improve a student's writing on one level. Strunk recommends that students “make the paragraph the unit of composition” (11), which was another 'duh' moment for me, but which is another very basic rule that needs to be taught. He also makes points about using the active voice that generally improve writing (and which have been previously covered by my colleagues). Much of the chapter is focused on language use, such as “put[ting] statements in positive form” (14) and using “definite, specific, concrete language” (15). Again, I can't find fault with giving these as tips to beginning writers; the examples he gives to show what he means are uniformly better than the examples of bad writing he uses (though I guess that's to be expected). The tone of the chapter is similar to these snippets of advice, focusing mostly on the form of the writing, and giving generally good advice about “omit[ting] needless words” (17), staying consistent with tense (25), and so on. Most of it seems useful enough to me, but a few of the pieces of advice struck me as slightly odd. The sections about “express[ing] co-ordinate ideas in similar form” (20) and the command to “place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end” (26) don't seem quite as useful. Yes, the examples he gave did sound better, but these rules seemed almost too specific to be exceptionally useful.
Chapter three is, as Josh points out in his paper, rendered fairly useless as a teaching tool by MLA and APA format, and chapter four is not as useful as the previous sections; many of the mistakes would be weeded out by speaking or corrections, though it certainly wouldn't hurt to teach them as well. In summary, there is a lot in this book that could be very useful to inexperienced writers. I think it could serve as a very useful tool to those who are just starting to learn to grapple with the English language. However, as I previously said, I would definitely have a problem with this textbook being used beyond middle school as the basis of a classroom's composition instruction. Though there are those who disagree with the notion that grammar should be taught at all, I do believe it should. The analogy used by Dr. Roggenbuck of teaching a student to drive and only focusing on teaching the turn signal (the turn signal being a symbol for grammar and usage) is compelling. However, I do think it's necessary to teach a driver to use the turn signal as well as how to drive; the turn signal won't necessarily be the first thing taught, but it should be included in there to turn the person into an effective drive. Otherwise, they will be getting into a bit of trouble with the police, and they'll learn through the disciplinary action they receive. To me, it seems more logical to just teach the behaviors that will create effective writing (or driving; I lost myself somewhere in that analogy). I haven't seen data to suggest otherwise, and I am certainly not an expert, but based on my experience and what I know now, that is what makes most sense.
Though the users of this text can be clearly seen, it would run into some problems if brought over to a high school class and used as the sole means of instruction. Though it does provide students with the basic tools of grammar, and ways to make a student's writing sound and look more professional, that is really all it accomplishes. As a supporter of the process pedagogy that I have read, this simply isn't sufficient for a continued development of writing skills. First, one section of the text gives me a serious problem: that of “choos[ing] a suitable design and sticking to it” (10). This adherence to a strict structure (often the five paragraph essay) severely limits students, who will not truly be thinking. They will take the ideas they have, attempt to cram them into the format they've been given, and throw out that which does not fit. This limitation prevents the wonderful potential of writing as a “recursive” (Sommers 324) process. In other words, if students limit their ideas to the format they're given, they do not allow themselves to write and write and write and let the thought come out in the writing. Speaking of Sommers, a second flaw inherent in this type of text is that of revision. As Sommers points out, many students simply revise by changing words around instead of by wrestling with the ideas in their paper, as they could if they weren't arbitrarily eliminating thing due to structural difficulties. Experienced writers embrace the recursive nature of writing, letting their thoughts come out, and then rearranging entire ideas within the structure they can freely create. This possibly unintended side effect of the type of instruction present in this text is very serious, but is definitely present. Worrying so much about form leads to insignificant revision strategies, as seen in Sommers' study, and revision is a keystone of continued success in writing.
I believe the name Tobin discusses in his essay, that of “process vs product” is a great way to look at the main problem I have with the text as a general entity. Basically every rule in this text focuses on the outcome of writing as a polished product. This is all well and good, but I don't believe it will improve writing. This book, if used as the only instruction in a composition class, would lead to what Tobin refers to as, “canned, dull, lifeless student essay[s]” (Tobin 5). Tobin expands upon why and touches on another reason I believe this text fails in the next sentence. This kind of outcome oriented, strictly rule based pedagogy may be useful to those just starting out, but when trying to develop further it “ignore[s] student interests, needs, and talents.” Nobody is writing in a vacuum, and though these rules would be helpful, there could be any number of different things wrong with students that could affect their writing. Many authors we've read have dealt with this problem, from the problems foreign students deal with (Fan Shen), to the joining of new communities or simply coming from a new community (Bartholomae and Harris). Each student is different, and simply throwing a set of rules at them will probably not produce good work. To create the “lively, engaging, dynamic, strongly-voiced student essays” (Tobin 5) that teachers seem to want, students need not to have rules shoved into their faces, but need to have their individual problems addressed.
Ultimately, though I firmly believe it would be useful as a very basic text in grammar and usage, it would fail in a serious composition class. It simply throws rules into the faces of students, and though they are for the most part useful tips, they would severely limit students attempting to move beyond basic composition. Their essays would be grammatically correct, but probably not very engaging. Focusing on the process of writing, allowing students to find ways to structure their essays instead of assigning them set, rigid models, and working with students to develop their own personal habits and voices, along with taking into account that everybody comes from a different place and may need separate instruction, is, to me, a far more effective way to teach.
As I said, there is some good in this textbook, as my colleagues have previously stated. Firstly, I can certainly get behind the qualities of brevity and clarity in my writing, as talked about in Josh's essay. These two qualities are the most important to me when I compose, so I'm completely behind having that be the focus of the advice presented. The first chapter on “elementary rules of usage” (Strunk 1) is very, very basic stuff, and hard to criticize for me. There isn't a single piece of advice in there that I necessarily disagree with; it's good advice, and stuff that I was taught very early in my student career. In fact, reading it made me think, “Is it really necessary to put this stuff in a book?” Of course it is, as not everybody takes the basic grammatical rules in here for granted as I, a more experienced writer, do, but I had the moment nevertheless. In the second chapter, “Elementary Principles of Composition” (10), Strunk once again gives some solid advice, that would probably improve a student's writing on one level. Strunk recommends that students “make the paragraph the unit of composition” (11), which was another 'duh' moment for me, but which is another very basic rule that needs to be taught. He also makes points about using the active voice that generally improve writing (and which have been previously covered by my colleagues). Much of the chapter is focused on language use, such as “put[ting] statements in positive form” (14) and using “definite, specific, concrete language” (15). Again, I can't find fault with giving these as tips to beginning writers; the examples he gives to show what he means are uniformly better than the examples of bad writing he uses (though I guess that's to be expected). The tone of the chapter is similar to these snippets of advice, focusing mostly on the form of the writing, and giving generally good advice about “omit[ting] needless words” (17), staying consistent with tense (25), and so on. Most of it seems useful enough to me, but a few of the pieces of advice struck me as slightly odd. The sections about “express[ing] co-ordinate ideas in similar form” (20) and the command to “place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end” (26) don't seem quite as useful. Yes, the examples he gave did sound better, but these rules seemed almost too specific to be exceptionally useful.
Chapter three is, as Josh points out in his paper, rendered fairly useless as a teaching tool by MLA and APA format, and chapter four is not as useful as the previous sections; many of the mistakes would be weeded out by speaking or corrections, though it certainly wouldn't hurt to teach them as well. In summary, there is a lot in this book that could be very useful to inexperienced writers. I think it could serve as a very useful tool to those who are just starting to learn to grapple with the English language. However, as I previously said, I would definitely have a problem with this textbook being used beyond middle school as the basis of a classroom's composition instruction. Though there are those who disagree with the notion that grammar should be taught at all, I do believe it should. The analogy used by Dr. Roggenbuck of teaching a student to drive and only focusing on teaching the turn signal (the turn signal being a symbol for grammar and usage) is compelling. However, I do think it's necessary to teach a driver to use the turn signal as well as how to drive; the turn signal won't necessarily be the first thing taught, but it should be included in there to turn the person into an effective drive. Otherwise, they will be getting into a bit of trouble with the police, and they'll learn through the disciplinary action they receive. To me, it seems more logical to just teach the behaviors that will create effective writing (or driving; I lost myself somewhere in that analogy). I haven't seen data to suggest otherwise, and I am certainly not an expert, but based on my experience and what I know now, that is what makes most sense.
Though the users of this text can be clearly seen, it would run into some problems if brought over to a high school class and used as the sole means of instruction. Though it does provide students with the basic tools of grammar, and ways to make a student's writing sound and look more professional, that is really all it accomplishes. As a supporter of the process pedagogy that I have read, this simply isn't sufficient for a continued development of writing skills. First, one section of the text gives me a serious problem: that of “choos[ing] a suitable design and sticking to it” (10). This adherence to a strict structure (often the five paragraph essay) severely limits students, who will not truly be thinking. They will take the ideas they have, attempt to cram them into the format they've been given, and throw out that which does not fit. This limitation prevents the wonderful potential of writing as a “recursive” (Sommers 324) process. In other words, if students limit their ideas to the format they're given, they do not allow themselves to write and write and write and let the thought come out in the writing. Speaking of Sommers, a second flaw inherent in this type of text is that of revision. As Sommers points out, many students simply revise by changing words around instead of by wrestling with the ideas in their paper, as they could if they weren't arbitrarily eliminating thing due to structural difficulties. Experienced writers embrace the recursive nature of writing, letting their thoughts come out, and then rearranging entire ideas within the structure they can freely create. This possibly unintended side effect of the type of instruction present in this text is very serious, but is definitely present. Worrying so much about form leads to insignificant revision strategies, as seen in Sommers' study, and revision is a keystone of continued success in writing.
I believe the name Tobin discusses in his essay, that of “process vs product” is a great way to look at the main problem I have with the text as a general entity. Basically every rule in this text focuses on the outcome of writing as a polished product. This is all well and good, but I don't believe it will improve writing. This book, if used as the only instruction in a composition class, would lead to what Tobin refers to as, “canned, dull, lifeless student essay[s]” (Tobin 5). Tobin expands upon why and touches on another reason I believe this text fails in the next sentence. This kind of outcome oriented, strictly rule based pedagogy may be useful to those just starting out, but when trying to develop further it “ignore[s] student interests, needs, and talents.” Nobody is writing in a vacuum, and though these rules would be helpful, there could be any number of different things wrong with students that could affect their writing. Many authors we've read have dealt with this problem, from the problems foreign students deal with (Fan Shen), to the joining of new communities or simply coming from a new community (Bartholomae and Harris). Each student is different, and simply throwing a set of rules at them will probably not produce good work. To create the “lively, engaging, dynamic, strongly-voiced student essays” (Tobin 5) that teachers seem to want, students need not to have rules shoved into their faces, but need to have their individual problems addressed.
Ultimately, though I firmly believe it would be useful as a very basic text in grammar and usage, it would fail in a serious composition class. It simply throws rules into the faces of students, and though they are for the most part useful tips, they would severely limit students attempting to move beyond basic composition. Their essays would be grammatically correct, but probably not very engaging. Focusing on the process of writing, allowing students to find ways to structure their essays instead of assigning them set, rigid models, and working with students to develop their own personal habits and voices, along with taking into account that everybody comes from a different place and may need separate instruction, is, to me, a far more effective way to teach.