So, we have analyzed Strunk and White’s text from a structuralist, a process pedagogical, and a social constructivist point of view, and what we have concluded can be summed up in quite short order. Of course, we all agree that Strunk and White’s guide is valuable from an early education perspective, as it is advisable, at least in our opinion, to teach the basics of English composition to young children so as to ensure consistency and rhetorical continuity – clarity, as they say – between speakers and writers. However, we also agree that it is not advisable to continue using such a prescriptive text at a higher education level. By the time a student has entered the world of higher education, the time for basic grammatical and other highly rote forms of composition pedagogy is well past. Instead, a process model is needed to ensure that the highly individualistic needs of higher-ed composition students are met. It is obvious, of course, that in order to ensure continuity and efficiency, children will have to be taught in a collective setting. Of course, certain needs must be met, such as the acknowledgement of their social background (or native discourse community). The only way to do this, it seems, is to adapt the system of pedagogy to include more one-to-one teacher-student interactions for students for whom such exercises would be beneficial. This approach would be perfectly suited, it seems, for a higher education setting, as students have much more time outside of class to interact with professors and tutors to help them to develop their writing.
Now, this is the point at which our major concern with Strunk and White’s writing manual (and, indeed, all writing manuals) must be addressed. It is the case, of course, that in order to effectively teach composition to college students in a collective setting, a process model is one that best fits the requirements of individual students, and it is also the case that early in the game, prescriptive texts like Strunk and White’s can be rather valuable. However, the indisputable fact that all these systems fail to take into account is that it is highly unlikely that any large body of students will be able to be reached by a single text, method, or pedagogical technique. This is due to the entirely subjective and individualistic nature of the way in which children and young adults learn to read and write (the two, of course, being inseparable). Individual experience, especially in the formative years of elementary and middle school, is critical to a child’s development as an effective communicator, and it is mainly through interaction with his or her family that these formative processes take place. This is not to say that pedagogies employed towards the beginning of a child’s critical period will not be extremely effective, and this is the stage at which Strunk and White’s text should be utilized – if not by students, then at least by educators. But one thing is for certain – no amount of current-traditional pedagogy is going to help a student when they are past these important stages of literacy development. After that, it’s all about the process pedagogy and individual instruction.
It is obvious, of course, that in order to ensure continuity and efficiency, children will have to be taught in a collective setting. Of course, certain needs must be met, such as the acknowledgement of their social background (or native discourse community). The only way to do this, it seems, is to adapt the system of pedagogy to include more one-to-one teacher-student interactions for students for whom such exercises would be beneficial. This approach would be perfectly suited, it seems, for a higher education setting, as students have much more time outside of class to interact with professors and tutors to help them to develop their writing.
Now, this is the point at which our major concern with Strunk and White’s writing manual (and, indeed, all writing manuals) must be addressed. It is the case, of course, that in order to effectively teach composition to college students in a collective setting, a process model is one that best fits the requirements of individual students, and it is also the case that early in the game, prescriptive texts like Strunk and White’s can be rather valuable. However, the indisputable fact that all these systems fail to take into account is that it is highly unlikely that any large body of students will be able to be reached by a single text, method, or pedagogical technique. This is due to the entirely subjective and individualistic nature of the way in which children and young adults learn to read and write (the two, of course, being inseparable). Individual experience, especially in the formative years of elementary and middle school, is critical to a child’s development as an effective communicator, and it is mainly through interaction with his or her family that these formative processes take place. This is not to say that pedagogies employed towards the beginning of a child’s critical period will not be extremely effective, and this is the stage at which Strunk and White’s text should be utilized – if not by students, then at least by educators. But one thing is for certain – no amount of current-traditional pedagogy is going to help a student when they are past these important stages of literacy development. After that, it’s all about the process pedagogy and individual instruction.