It sounds like English departments in the 60's and 70's must have been hell.
First, we read William Riley Parker's scathing diatribe against freshman composition courses that were "fumbling and faddish and lacking well-defined goals," (6) against theme-writing that was a "dismal and unflowering desert," (14) and against a profession characterized by "acquisitiveness, expediency, and incredible stupidity" (15). Then came Kitzhaber, more balanced in tone and systematic in presentation than Parker, but still insistent that many comp teachers were "bored or resentful," (261) and that rhetoric textbooks have "probably done a good deal more over the years to hinder good writing than to foster it" (263).
We polished off this week's assigned reading with another caustic critique of postmodern English departments: an excerpt from Ken Macrorie's Telling Writing. Macrorie tackles the issue from a different angle than either Parker or Kitzhaber. Rather than addressing problems with instructors, methods, or textbooks, Macrorie focuses on the writing itself. Poor instruction has left students' writing sucked dry of power and vitality by forcing them to speak in a "phony, pretentious language" that he calls "Engfish" (297).
According to Macrorie, English textbooks and teachers alike encouraged students to write in ways that had no connection to the real world. It's interesting that the pragmatic push that started during the Industrial Revolution, the movement that kicked out the classics to make room for relevancy, wound up stranding English teachers in sterile wastelands of "A Happy Vacation" (Kitzhaber 261) and "impressive impressions" (Macrorie 298).
However, Macrorie says, there are simple cures for bad cases of Engfish. Write truthfully, he pleads. Honest expression. No facades. Your own unique voice. Write freely first, then write with focus. "Reward them [your readers] with meaning" (313). Thankfully, most English departments have pulled out of the dismal slump that characterized them in Parker's, Kitzhaber's and Macrorie's day and have allowed fresh ideas to blow through stale classrooms. Today's English departments teach students to write in ways that speak.
While I enjoyed most of what Macrorie had to say, I found myself a little disappointed by the end (maybe if I read the whole book, I would be satisfied). I guess I'd hoped for a magic potion for getting students to drop Engfish. I spend the first half of the year in sophomore comp trying to get my kids to write for the real world using their real voices. Some of them spend all their sophomore, junior, and senior years in my classroom feeding me sickening Engfish, convinced that it's what I really want. Although I didn't get my magic potion, Macrorie did inspire me to focus on reading (not just correcting!) students' writing, to help them find their authentic voices, and to reward honest writing with honest praise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
P.S. Okay, I just finished reading the Hairston article, and now I understand why I was disappointed in Macrorie: I disagree with many elements of the literary view of composing. I do not believe that "writing is a nonrational activity that cannot really be taught" (Moss 70). I still believe that Macrorie provided much-needed balance to the cold, formulaic approach to teaching English and that he defined the problem well. Students today use a lot of big words and convoluted syntax to disguise a poverty of ideas. However, I think his solution (freewriting to access the subconscious) is incomplete if it's all you ever do in the English classroom. Solid structure and a thorough understanding of our rhetorical situation is necessary to accomplish our goals as writers.
ReplyDeleteI have had the same experiences with student writing. It seems that the students write what they think will satisfy me, but not what satisfies them. Every year I have encountered a student who will hand me his or her paper and ask if that is what I want when the bigger question is, is that what he or she wants. The students are more focused on writing for a grade than writing to themselves, and developing skills they will need in the real world. Students seem to be afraid to write in their own unique style because it doesn't match the writing that has come before. I like the added post about students using thesaurus over load to disguise a lack of ideas. Students always seem to struggle to find topics and if they have topics they are not sure how to expand on them.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the truth? Right on! There are some students who love to write and like nothing better than an open freewrite. But there are other students who are always telling me they have "no idea what to write about" and even if I give them a plethora of suggested topics, they can't figure out what to say.
ReplyDeleteJust curious about how writing is graded today. Do students receive one grade on a composition or is the grading split: one grade for mechanics and one grade for content? If you get time, take a look at the last section of my blog because I was teaching in the 60's and 70's and the English Department wasn't hell (well maybe some days!). But, our district did participate in hiring lay readers and you may find that information from my personal experience informative.
ReplyDeleteMarilyn, I'm so glad to hear that it wasn't all bad (I didn't think it was, but our readings sure made it sound like it!). I think that these authors are mostly ranting against college freshman comp courses. I very much enjoyed reading your blog, especially hiring of lay readers (wow, 25 cents a theme!).
ReplyDeleteI grade writing through detailed rubrics. Students receive one score for ideas, one for organization, one for sentence fluency, one for voice, one for word choice, and one for mechanics. These scores are then tallied to produce the final grade.