Blog from readings for 5/5/08

All of these readings led me to the same question. How can anyone teach something they cannot define? I liked Fulkerson’s breakdown of the discipline; the axiology, epistemology, & pedagogy. Now I think I understand the meaning of these terms and how they apply to any discipline. But it was his article, more than any that really shows that a writing or composition study defies definition. It has become apparent, that there is tumultuous disagreement with in the field. Is that because it is a humanities study and Humans are indefinable? Or is it sociological or cultural? It is certainly contextual. Are there some basic skills required of the student? Reading would be one and the ability to put pen to paper or use a word processor of some kind. The rest (like grammar, spelling and other linguistic tasks) seem relative (to the language).

Berlin’s article helped me review the various theories and philosophies of the formative writers in the field of the past ~30 years. His analyses of the four dominant theoretical categories, Neo-Aristotelians or classicists, Positivists or Current –Traditionalists; Neo-Platonists or expressionists; and the New Rhetoricians, helps better understand these philosophies and, as he says, “to better understand their modern manifestations”.

I believe that in every scholastic discipline, students become indoctrinated into the philosophical underpinnings of the curriculum of their Major – that field of study in which they are attempting to acquire degree. For example, mine was the philosophy of Betty Neuman, RN PhD. She developed a “Systems Model of health and wellness” that the School of Nursing subscribed to. In the 1980’s every Nursing program had a philosophical framework which grounded their teaching. They were many and varied. As numerous and varied as there were nurse-theorists, at the time. (There are only a few schools of nursing that follow a framework from Florence Nightingale, and I wild guess, that they are mostly British Military nursing programs.) In spite of utilizing different theories for defining nursing, the discipline maintained a standard for teaching. This has come under question in the past decade. I did not study any other discipline to determine if other fields like Biology or Chemistry also were taught with a philosophical framework. But, I see, now that English and more specifically Composition study is struggling to identify a framework or philosophy that truly identifies its purpose and pedagogy. I would assume this is because it (the fields of Composition studies) cannot define itself or its purpose.

Berlin analyzes each of the dominant theories for their basic belief, the advantage and disadvantage of the theory and how they impact the discipline and the student. I will not attempt to reiterate what he has so concisely explained, but to say that I am grateful for his synopsis of these philosophies. If I were to identify myself with one of these I would probably say I am a New Rhetorician, as I understand it. I agree that writing is contextual, is the use of language within a given “culture” or discourse community, based on the interpretation of the reader (not always the writer) and is dynamic. As the language of the society changes, so does the meaning, and only the interpreter can make the meaning.

Is this something that can be taught? The curriculum described by Downs and Wardle seems to incorporate all the concepts of composition theory and teach the “moves” to make the student able to be effective novice writers. Their course structure looks like the student gets a look at the various philosophies along with practice writing in various aspects that lend toward writing for many purposes. They look at the expectations that the various stakeholders have for the purpose of teaching writing. And to me, it looks like it lends itself to a curriculum separate and apart from English (as a discipline) is that what is forthcoming? Writing and/or composition needs to establish itself as a separate discipline in order to define itself and find its true purpose and place within the University? Am I stating the obvious?

Can there be more than one theoretical underpinning among college composition course and yet a standard of teaching? I am a science major, but in a humanistic field, which means that my truth is variable and dependent on the interpretation from the patient in the context of their reality. But I have standards of care that must be met in providing care within that reality. Can the teaching of composition and writing maintain a standard or is that going back to a quantitative scientific notion of teaching process.

I have another question, then. Is the term writing used inappropriately? Should writing apply to the technique and Composition apply to the study and practice of using language in all its forms to communicate some dialogue either spoken or written. Aren’t Writers really Composers?

Thanks for letting me voice my novice and naïve opinions.

PW