Recent Changes

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.

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.

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.

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.

Current-Traditional pedagogy (hereafter referred to as CTP) is understandable
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.

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 (hereafter referred to as CTP) 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.

In matters of discussing intellectual property, the object takes precedence over the subject. In applying the passive voice, one can define the point of analysis he or she holds based on previously established concepts. Rather than sounding indistinct, passive-voiced sentences can center focus on the topic and in doing so, reveal the presence of collective knowledge.
Strunk and White instruct writers to offer statements in positive form and to “Use the word not as a means of denial or in antithesis, never as a means of evasion” (14). In this twelfth section, they stress a process of what I’ll refer to as salting and trimming the meat; writers must expand auxiliary writing with purpose and remove weak or superfluous material. Strunk and White identify the usage of “not” ineffective. Here they emphasize replacing “not important” with “trifling” to “show the weakness inherent in the word not” (14). This practice of implementing positive statements highlights the supplementary nature of social constructivism; there is always an active process of addition in effect.
to Chapter V.IV. The section
Ultimately, the nuances of social constructivism (though few and far between) in The Elements of Style have transcended the time context in which it was assembled. The book itself exists as a physical transporter of knowledge from one century to the next. The brevity and clarity streamlines Strunk and White’s concepts, making them intelligible to a contemporary writer.

Style is not by anyno means a
The instances of social constructivism are concentrated in Chapter II: Elementary Principles of Composition (10). We can see the substance first in section 11: Use the active voice (13). While the authors primarily take care in enforcing composition in the active voice, they do reveal the significance of the passive voice:
The dramatists of the Restoration are little esteemed to-day.

When reading a book one begins at the beginning; this book has a foreword, but even before then we see the publication information -- this tiny totem of knowledge on English writing was written in 1869. Our discussion begins there, with the idea of a time context that cannot be reached.
English writing.
We will begin with the foreword, a brash rhetorical appeal to writers, authoritative and emotional. Although the techniques being used to argue the worth of the source material may seem indirect, they are not ineffective. “Writing is hard,” (ix) is a statement one has trouble disagreeing with, provided they are reading a style guide of their own volition. The foreword continues to assert a vague set of aesthetic principles that shape this view of writing as if they represent the most direct solution to the emotional and psychological problems great writers face. Then, the foreword lists the changes that have been made to the text – they are mostly quite trivial, although I find the integration of egalitarian gender views into the text to be fascinating from a social justice perspective, this seems a tangential to the purpose of the text which is to simplify the task of writing in a concise and accessible fashion.
After the foreword, the introduction from the 1979 edition introduces the voice of the book’s second editor: E. B. White (the first being William Strunk Jr., the first edition’s author). White starts by giving the reader an impression of Strunk’s personality and affect in relation to the source material, something he had written and printed as a small textbook for his students to use. Before long, we discover that White’s attraction to the material stems from a combination of its brevity and clarity. These are the two main ideas behind the many enumerated seemingly arbitrary rules of this book. Writers who follow the advice given in The Elements of Style essentially venerate these two principles.
However, Chapter Two begins discussions of a more complex facet of language: style. Breaking from the prescriptive or the conventional is always dangerous. For the most part, Chapter Two continues to encourage writers towards concise and accurate English usage – in this chapter an additional idea is introduced to explain how different stylistic choices impact writing. Instead of claiming propriety exists in stylistic choices regarding verb usage, Strunk uses the words “weak” and “strong” to discuss the formal impact of language – through these terms, Strunk argues that doubt and ambiguity must be reserved for when they are needed most instead of merely labeling all usages of modal auxiliaries as bad.
I only found one instance wherein this chapter deviated from what I would consider to be the briefest and most accurate discussion of the subject matter. “15. Put statements in positive form” (19) is bad advice. When writing stories or poetry, one should occasionally emphasize the absence of an object or action. If I was writing about absence it would be appropriate for my discussion to reflect that negativity. Rather than that, I could find no fault with the advice of this chapter.
time context.
Although the fifth chapter was written by White, it represents the culmination of all these dogmatic rules into a coherent structure. Style is finally explained as a concept in such a way that allows the reader to grasp why stylistic choices impact the affect of their writing. Without guides such as this it would be impossible for some of us to fully grasp the scope of linguistic possibilities. By restricting the realm of possibilities to those of a size and quality that the mind can grasp Strunk and White allow writers to make real progress at the task, the craft of writing.