Crowley
I have to say I never really thought much about the evolution of the inventional process in writing. However, after reading this article it does make sense that it would be defined in some way – I suppose it was never formally defined or dictated to me, and just seems like a logical way to proceed with writing. I definitely do not follow Scott and Denney’s steps as delineated in New Composition-Rhetoric (p. 339). I think I can safely say that I have never once chosen a title before composing a theme and writing an outline. In fact, I often choose a title after the paper is completely finished – I have a knack for totally unimaginative, painful titles, so I tend to procrastinate on the title until the last possible moment. I’m curious, does anyone else follow this method and choose a title early in the process? My personal process tends to go something like subject, narrow subject and develop theme while writing preliminary outline, add detail to outline, write, revise, choose painful title.
I tried the method with notecards, but am unable to stick to it on a regular basis. I just end up with a lot of notecards that I need to keep track of. The only time this really worked from me was when I was writing my thesis – I made notecards with all the direct quotes or ideas I might use, with the source information. I then put them in an electronic notecard program which allowed me to search and sort easily. It really helped for a large paper, but there is absolutely no way I would go to that much trouble for anything less than, say, 100 pages.
D’Angelo
I agree with D’Angelo that writing cannot necessarily be easily classified into one of the 19th-century modes of discourse. It seems that many works cross over into multiple modes of discourse, some even from paragraph to paragraph. In addition, some never fit neatly into any category. I do wonder, though, how critical it is to have this defined clearly. It does not seem nearly as important to me as finding a better way to teach, or defining “good writing.” I can see the usefulness, but not as a first-tier task.
Shaughnessy
I understand what Shaughnessy is saying about how beginning writers can be discouraged by teachers who concentrate too much on “correct” writing. However, proper grammar is an important element of the English language. It must be incorporated at some point, but if teaching grammar discourages writers, when should it be taught? Before students write, when they will have no real opportunity to practice? During writing class, but alongside a hefty dose of commentary and constructive criticism of the writing itself and not just grammar and spelling? After students have found their writing voice, but may be entrenched in language errors?
Perhaps I am somewhat insensitive to this since I never found grammar and spelling to be much of a problem. However, I become very discouraged with the idea that grammar is not important at all. It is a fundamental part of every language, and students must learn it! The problem is finding balance – teaching students grammar and spelling while still encouraging their love of the language and their writing skills. The class readings are definitely reminding me that there are many frustrating problems with teaching English and writing, many of which seem to have no clear-cut answers.
I think I read Shaughnessy differently. I didn’t really catch that she was against grammar. She seems to find it important enough to address directly and to great length, and I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that she had to defend her position against instructors who would find such treatment indulgent or unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteShaughnessy’s strongest message for me was that we need to help students overcome their beliefs that 1) grammar is the “holy grail” of “good” writing and 2) their written ideas are worthless without it. I find a lot of what she says applicable to times when I teach writing to non-writers, like my program’s graphic designers. I must first overcome their frustration with/fear of grammar before they can learn things like invention. I think this would be true of most of our future students, if we aim to train technicians to write.
But overcoming that fear doesn’t mean abandoning grammar altogether, and Shaughnessy notes that we need to attend to grammar because it’s important to our students as well as to work-relevant writing. I think she just needed to prepare faculty (like those at CUNY) for the types of errors they might encounter and ways to help their students rectify those grammar problems without everyone feeling demoralized in the process.
I found it interesting that Shaughnessy tells us grammar should not be the only focus of instruction, however devotes five of her seven chapters to some facet of grammar instruction:
ReplyDeleteChapter 2: Handwriting and punctuation
Chapter 3: Syntax
Chapter 4: Common errors
Chapter 5: Spelling
Chapter 6: Vocabulary
I'd like to see a change in focus in English instruction from producing "good writers" to "good communicators". We're all writers...that is, everyone who can write is a "writer"...but it is far rarer to find a good communicator, and this is the skill that should be taught.