Contribution Example 1 You stand, staring out into a roomful of drooping eyelids and blank faces that relay the following message like an "alcoholics anonymous" billboard: "I have heard it all before. Please just assign the paper and leave me alone. I'll get it done, you'll grade it, you'll return it, and then you'll give the next assignment. I'm familiar with the system." This is the concept that many people hold with regards to writing classes, and many teachers play this role quite well - assigning the paper, collecting the paper, commenting on and grading the paper for grammar, and then returning it. Although some teachers view grammatical comments as feedback, the feedback that students need is that which pertains to the actual composition technique. The NAEP states that, "in many cases, students do not receive enough feed back on their writing from their teachers." However, there seems to be a lack of common understanding of what is meant by constructive feedback. The feedback about grammatical errors is beneficial, but feedback on process, or how the paper was written is the constructive feedback they need. A balance between the two types of feedback must be found (Connors). Students need feedback telling them what was wrong, how the paper could have been written differently, and an opportunity to try to apply what they have been told. Unfortunately, there seem to be many reasons that this is an unfeasible suggestion. One such cause of this problem is that the classes are just too big. It is not reasonable to expect one teacher to constructively comment on each paper when they have four classes of twenty students. If it took the teacher on the average about one hour per paper in order to say everything that needed to be said, then there would be about eighty hours of work awaiting them after each paper was turned in. Another factor that interferes with students receiving constructive feedback is that some teachers simply are not concerned. The teacher must actually care about how much a student is learning in the class to spend enough time to teach all the details of writing. Or sometimes it isn't even so much that they are unconcerned, but that they don't realize that they are doing something wrong (Hashimoto). That is an easy problem to solve and it is sad that some students aren't getting the education in writing that they deserve and that their teachers want to give to them because the teachers haven't been shown how to do it. However, there exist more causes to the problem that are not so easy to solve. Some teachers don't feel that their students will benefit from the feedback because of their views of the models for writing and developmental influence. They feel that students won't learn to write until they reach a certain point of maturity and have experienced life to an extent (Ephron). Even if there is some truth to this view, which I feel that there may be, if students are taught correct processes from an early age, they will be able to apply them as they write later in life. Many writing teachers are quite good writers themselves and this is why they go into writing instruction. However, in the words of John Barth, "Good writers are not necessarily good coaches..." This is another problem. People must realize that just because they can write doesn't meant that they can automatically teach it. I once had a friend who was a great tennis player and he asked me if I wanted to learn to play. I agreed, however, it turned out that we just ended up frustrating each other to no end. He didn't have the patience or words to explain it to me and I couldn't learn on my own. Some instructors rely too much on heuristics (Hashimoto). They need to do more to encourage the students and interact with them throughout the writing of the paper. Other teachers who are trying to find a good method of teaching stray from the path because of an inadequate model of writing process. One way that people have tried to solve this problem is by studying the writing processes of established writers. Flower and Hayes are two of the researchers in this field. although I feel that it is important to understand what happens in one's head while writing, I don't necessarily feel that this is the way to go about solving the problem. The teacher student relationship and communication are the keys to the solution. I see this only as a possible step in making that relationship a little clearer, but not helping in its actual formation and not looking at the need for the teacher's comments. Another possible cause is that some teachers are insensitive to their students’ differences (Flynn). Students are individuals who write from individual viewpoints. Teachers should keep this in mind when they are dealing with the papers and not just say the same thing to each student out of habit. If the proper teacher student relationship is formed, I think that this problem will decrease dramatically because the student and teacher will be on a more personal level with each other. There are different ways to go about solving the problem of students receiving constructive feedback on their papers. Class sizes could be cut, pay increases and understanding on the part of the administration will need to be given. Students could try to show more caring and put more time into their writing because it's hard to ask a teacher to care about the students' writing when the students themselves don't care. However, before any solutions can be put into action, the world of writing instruction has to embrace the problem and familiarize themselves with it. Many essays have been written about the problem of today's writing, but it seems that everyone is defining the problem and posing solutions, not acting on any of them. What we need to do is to establish better relations between the students and their teachers. This requires give and take between both parties. Once this is established, the teacher will feel better about giving feedback and will know that the student is listening and understanding and the student will be more apt to accept as friendly advise rather than an order from an authoritative figure. Contribution Example 2 There is a pressing need in the United States to be able to communicate effectively, and the ability to write is one of the foremost methods of communication in this country. Indeed, this is backed up by the report of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which states, "Well over 60% of America's 110 million salaried workers generate written material on a regular basis." (1987) In a society such as ours which places such importance on the written word, it becomes clear that students need to be instructed in the ways of effective writing so that they may function successfully in society; they need to be properly instructed how to write. Unfortunately for the students of today and yesteryear, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the methods of teaching writing currently employed by teachers do not work as well as necessary. Archie LaPointe, the executive director of the NAEP, informs us that "[s]tudents at ages 9, 13, and 17 are writing at the same level of competence as they were in 1974 [and] the level of achievement in 1974 was very discouraging." (LaPointe 1986) LaPointe continues, "Only 20% of 17-year-olds ... could write an 'adequate' persuasive letter [and] about 2.5 million 13-year-olds at about the seventh- or eighth-grade levels cannot adequately do the most common and useful writing tasks." Considering the importance of the ability to write effectively, today's students are indeed looking at a bleak future. Do understand that this problem is not going unnoticed. Indeed, there are experts throughout the levels of writing pedagogy, and some from outside of writing, who are developing problem definitions and solutions to our problem. These people see the problems responsible for the poor state of writing instruction lying in areas as diverse as inappropriate terms applied toward writing to problems with the methods used to teach writing. They see solutions ranging from increasing knowledge and understanding of revision to increasing teacher-pupil interaction. No, there is certainly no lack of concern for the problem. But there is also no lack of differing and sometimes conflicting ideas. And, hence, we have arrived at the very heart of the problem which is facing those trying to correct the current system of writing pedagogy. There are so many different people who have developed both reasons for and suggestions to improve the methods and state of writing instruction that no simple solution can be arrived at. There are too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak. What we have, indeed, is "a chorus of clashing answers [which is creating] problems for literacy planners and educators." (Scribner) Now you might want to argue that having all of these suggestions for ways in which to resolve this desperate situation should actually make it easier to find the proper solution. Your reasons might be that a great number of suggestions from which to choose only makes easier the problem of arriving at a solution. However, this is far from correct. Consider what Scribner states: "Each formulation of an answer to the question ... leads to ... different objectives for programs aimed at the formation of a literate citizenry." This precisely describes my definition of the problem. When there exist so many suggestions for improving the state of writing education, there also exists a large volume of disagreement; this is inevitable. If there was not disagreement, in most cases, there would be very few articles written, as there would be little or no point in publishing views and ideas which had already been written. But the views continue to come into print, and they continue to disagree with each other. And the issue of poor writing instruction continues. Before I can present a solution to the problem of all of these conflicting views, it is important to describe the reasons why there are so many ideas which have been presented to the public regarding what should be done to improve the state of writing instruction. Authors may publish papers just to publish. Some authors might publish the results of their research for others to see and peruse. And some authors publish in order to contradict what they might see as an incorrect idea. The problem of authors publishing just to publish can certainly be a problem. It may not seem all that major at first. You might think that it's only another article, and it already says something that's been said before, so it's not really adding any new conflict. However, this may not be entirely correct. Too much of what's written can be interpreted numerous ways. It may be that some poorly or vaguely worded phrase makes it sound as though this paper is attacking, rather than supporting another view. Now we have conflict, and this is a case that is quite possible. It is also possible that a paper published just to be published could both contradict and support several different, possibly clashing ideas. All in all, this can be a deceptively destructive reason for contributing a paper to an area. So why might a person contribute such a paper? For one, writing professionals involved in education (e.g. instructors), especially at the college level, need to be published. The college environment is often called a "publish or perish" environment for professors. Therefore, there is a great need for these people to publish papers. If they are having troubles coming up with original work, they may just go ahead and submit a paper for publication which has little new to add to the field. Another reason that a person may publish a paper just to publish is if that person is a professional writer. These people write for a living. If they are running a little low on cash one month, they might just decide to go ahead and write a paper. They probably won't be terribly concerned about whether or not this paper adds anything to the community or not at this point. Papers such as these, which are not published for any really good reasons, can easily cause more harm than good. These papers add very little to the community, and the confusion they can cause, not to mention extra reading time for those trying to be kept abreast of the situation, can actually be damaging to the cause. While most people involved in the field probably have high enough moral fiber to refrain from this, it still remains a potential problem. Sometimes authors may come across ideas in a paper which are different than theirs. This type of situation is another cause of the large number of papers written, as these authors want to espouse their views, as well. This is that condition where an author contributes a work to an area in order to intentionally contradict the view taken by another author. Possibly you feel that this contradiction is beneficial. You might argue, indeed, that this contradiction allows the weaknesses of each authors' views to be shown. It might also present the readers with some new, intuitive thoughts on the subject, having seen both sides of an argument. However, I would like to hasten to say that all this contradiction actually does do is bog down those trying to arrive at a solution is a morass of disagreement. How will multiple conflicting views ever push a group of people, the very same people who are disagreeing, to arrive at one general solution? Simply: it won't. One way in which these authors may disagree concerns what the authors see as the development of the problem. The reason why this becomes troublesome is that it is often the problem development which leads to a solution. If two authors see the development differently, they probably don't see the solution in the same light, even though they still view the problem identically. I will illustrate this with a specific example. There are two authors who see essentially the same problem with writing instruction today. These authors, Mike Rose and Robert Connors, see the problem as a lack of rhetorical instruction in the school, accompanied with an overemphasis on grammatical instruction. Though they see the problem in the same way, they view the development of the problem differently. Additionally, because they have seen the problem taking root in different ways, the two authors have also come to two different solutions to the problem. Robert Connors sees the problem developing because of an overburdening of teachers. No longer could the teachers continue to keep up with the large number of students that they were given, so they resorted to grading papers solely on grammatical correctness. Over time, this idea became rooted in the educational system, and it still an inherent facet of the system today. The solution, according to Connors, is to find a medium between grammar and rhetoric and instruct both. (Connors 1985). Mike Rose, on the other hand, claims that the problem came about based on analyses of students' writing. Psychological analyses were performed on errors made in order to detect a pattern. The error patterns were analyzed, and a system of writing instruction which taught the grammatical rules in such a way as to avoid these most common of errors sprang up. Unfortunately, it took hold and remains in place. The solution, according to Rose, is to make people see that this is not a proper way to view writing. To expose people to what Rose calls the "richness of the language." In essence, to change the perception people have of the language. (Rose 1985) As can be seen, both of these authors see the problem in generally the same way. They see a reductive model of the language which teaches mechanical aspects versus rhetorical aspects. However, because they view the onset of the problem differently, they also arrive at different measures which they feel must be taken in order to solve the problem. There are other ways in which authors can contradict each other, as well. For instance, two authors may have disagreements over the way in which they feel different methods should be used or emphasized. They may see one technique as being poor or lacking while another author feels that it is excellent. This idea can be illustrated by two more authors - Linda Flower & John Hayes and Irvin Hashimoto. Linda Flower & John Hayes discuss the problem of inexperienced writers. They feel that the inexperienced writer frequently has problems either properly utilizing past experience when writing or developing creative ideas when there is limited past experience or both. They suggest as a first line of defense the idea of standard heuristic techniques, techniques which provide an aid for students to synthesize and develop ideas using past experience. When these standard heuristics don't perform as needed, Flower & Hayes recommend some type of tool to help stimulate creative thought, a specialized heuristic of some type. All in all, Flower & Hayes seem to be in favor of heuristic models as aids to writing. In fact, Linda Flower has even suggested that she feels that heuristics "help students to explore systematically everything they know about a subject." (Hashimoto 1985) Irvin Hashimoto, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care very much for heuristic models. He seems to feel that most teachers do not properly know how to use them, for one thing. For another, he doesn't seem to feel that they will work as readily as other authors seem to. In fact, he states that "... there is no need to assume that ... addressing a subject through [heuristics] will effectively change students' thinking. ..." In essence, Hashimoto does not feel that heuristics are terribly reliable for useful, and he feels their teaching is greatly overemphasized, yet terribly misunderstood. The disagreement between these two authors is very apparent as well. They clash harshly over the role and effectiveness of heuristics. By Hashimoto having even cited a previous article by Flower, we are shown first hand the idea of clashes due to disagreement over preferred or suggested methods of instruction. One final reason that authors publish papers which I will discuss concerns the release of research information or data. These works represent the data and description of this data that authors release in order to inform the rest of the community with new or interesting results that they may have found. These authors have developed and release this information in the hope that others might find it useful while trying to solve the problems facing writing instruction. So now you might argue that there is no reason to not release this information. This is all benign, you argue. After all, this information only helps; how could research about the problems hurt anything? Once again, this is an incorrect idea to take. It must be noted that all research does not come out the same. Look at the cold fusion area. Pons and Fleischman released their information documenting their "discovery" of cold fusion. They concurrently released the details of their experiments. The rest of the science world started trying to duplicate this results. At first, several institutions even succeeded. Although the results eventually all began showing that nothing more than a simple chemical reaction was occurring, the initial confirming results by such noted institutions as Caltech and Stanford led some to believe that cold fusion had actually been discovered. What this shows, then, is that large amounts of released research only bogs down an issue. Many times, as with cold fusion, the results are contradictory and result in disbelief of all results, regardless of their claims. Therefore, while research is indeed necessary to arrive at solutions, too many results, especially if contradictory, become troublesome. The report of the NAEP, for instance, gives some very good information about the very bad state of writing education for younger American students. The NAEP report is uses time-tested methods of gaining its information. What if a poorly done report came out saying that during the period of the NAEP's evaluations, American students were receiving the best education in writing ever and that nearly every student could write perfectly? It would start to create a large amount of confusion, and that would hamper efforts to try to reform writing instruction. All of these reasons for publishing contributions to the writing community are practiced. Some are obviously more acceptable than others, but all add to the amount of information concerning how to resolve the problems with writing instruction. It is important that you understand the way in which the contributed problem development ideas, problem definitions, and problem solutions work together and against each other to understand the steps which should be taken in order for educator to improve writing education. Now that I have demonstrated how the deluge of ideas concerning the improvement of writing instruction impacts those people responsible for changing the system, I would now like to present my solution to our problem, namely how to use all of the suggestions. You first need to note that making the wide-scale changes needed will take time; there is little doubt about that. But it is time, in my opinion, that is well worth taking. A solution which will help students to write better will prove invaluable to the future of the students concerned, as well as to the nation as a whole. There are several paths which could be taken in order to get through this large number of proposed changes and arrive at a particular viewpoint. The key to the whole mess is to compromise. The educators throughout the system, in one way another, need to arrive at a compromise between positions in order to work out an acceptable solution. Here are the ways I have determined that this could come about. We can idly sit by and wait. Eventually, as authors keep coming up with the same views, or as authors with the most conflicting views die off, other authors will start becoming accustomed to the same type of responses. Through this, they will start making suggestions which are very similar to everyone else's. And eventually, we will have arrived at a solution to the problem which is agreed upon by all. Obviously this is a very weak idea. I certainly don't suggest it, but for fairness of discussion it needs to be brought up. This idea will take a long, long time to ever have any effect, if the theory behind it works at all. The shift may very well take place. But, in my opinion, the time it would take and the almost passive stance it takes are just too ludicrous to consider. Another solution would be to form a government organization under the Department of Education. The new Education Secretary and his immediate underlings are supposed to be radically different and willing to change. So, why don't we set up a committee which will be comprise of experts in the field of writing pedagogy. The experts can examine all of the ideas presented by the various authors and rule on the ones which are best. The committee can then assemble the selected ideas into one massive, federally mandated system of writing instruction. This way, there would be no discussion, no conflicting views. I find this idea rather absurd, as well. The idea that "Uncle Sam says this, so this is how it is" is ridiculous. Additionally, it totally violates the idea that education is an authority which is delegated to state and local government. There would no doubt be a loud outcry from the state and local governments, and there rightfully should be. The federal government would be stepping on toes in an area where it shouldn't even be. There is too great a chance, as well, that these "experts" chosen by the proposed committee would be chosen for their views which would already conform to that person who would be forming the committee. No, this wouldn't work either. It would be simple and easy, but we want good as well. My third, and recommended, suggestion for dealing with the vast number of authors consists of experimenting. The educators who hold certain beliefs should take the ideas which they believe in and implement them into an education environment. They should honestly monitor the results and report them after an appropriate time. Bear in mind that these ideas may be a combination of any number of authors. It may well be a hodge podge. But they would be attempting to find out how to best teach writing, not who's whose individual ideas worked in practice. Like the other suggestions, this plan would take time. I don't, however, feel that the time it would take is extraordinary. It may well take five or ten years. But it took a lot longer than that for the condition of writing education to sink to its current level. I feel that this plan also has the benefit of teaching students while experiments are run. In actuality, it may even be discovered that several new techniques work equally well. Then educators can take their choice of systems. Regardless, if this plan works, students will be taught how to write better, students will become better writers, and students will become successful in their futures. Taken together, then, students become better writers and educators gain an end they have been searching for some time; the proper way in which to teach writing. The search for a solution to the problems facing writing instruction has been hindered for some time. It has been hindered by the very things which are needed complete the search; multiple views of problem development, multiple problem definitions, and multiple problem solutions. There is a definite need, then, to arrive at a way in which to integrate the large number of contributions in order to arrive at a workable solution. I have attempted to provide just such a solution. The plan I proposed, that of testing out numerous combinations of ideas in different places and assessing the results, is a very workable plan. It has the benefit of continuing the education of students will it takes place. In fact, even the students who would be taught by the least of the methods would still probably be getting a better education than they previously had. It also has the benefit of allowing the combination of techniques where needed or desired to provide an all-around writing education. My program takes time; any method will take time to take effect. I feel, however, that it can effectively solve the problems which are facing writing educators. Through the proper course, I am sure that the problem can be solved. I have presented what is without doubt one of many possible solutions. All that's left now if for at least one to be decided upon and implemented; one that will repair writing education. Only through some type of change can the system be changed. Once educators make the change, you had better watch out. Because not only will writing instruction be changed, but this nation and its people will be changed. And it will be a change in the right direction. Contribution Example 3 For a number of years now, teachers and administrators have been identifying problems with the teaching of writing in today’s educational institutions. NAEP researchers (1) illustrate with supporting statistics the sad fact that ‘most U.S. children cannot adequately express their ideas and emotions in writing.’ faced with the fact that so many students are coming out of schools without adequate writing skills, it is obvious that somewhere along the line, writing is not getting learned. Why? A simple enough question but in this case, one that receives a variety of confusing answers. Authors have identified so many valid problems with the teaching of writing that it is no longer possible to identify the most important problem -- a problem which, if solved, will clear up most of the other problems. One of the problems that very few authors address is that of poor teacher-student communication. Without effective communication between students and teachers, a lot of the material being taught is lost. Archie Lapointe (2) points out that while half of the fourth grade teachers surveyed thought that outlining was important, only 20% of their students felt the same way, and while 90% of the teachers felt that the quality of the students’ ideas were important only half the students reported receiving comments in this area. Lapointe’s statistics clearly indicate that poor communication is a problem that affects the teaching of writing, but how important is this problem when compared to problems like the use of poor writing models? Consider the problem with poor writing models, a problem that is presented by authors such as Rose(3), Connors(4) and Flower and Hayes(5). These authors present solutions to this problem that eradicate models that have excessive grammar, models that use incorrect metaphors to describe writing or models that misrepresent writing. The ultimate model would be one that presents writing as an essential creative process. But how is the student to infer this if the teacher cannot communicate the model? The solution to the models problem does not do much to solve the communication problem. However a solution to the communication problem, will make the solution to the models problem easier to implement. To further illustrate the importance of the communication problem, consider the case where a surgeon is performing an operation with the aid of an intern and the intern is the one who will be doing all the cutting and stitching, on the surgeons directions. If the surgeon speaks a different language and cannot communicate with the intern, then the intern will unable to perform the operation. No matter how good the surgeon is or how much he knows, none of his knowledge can be communicated to the intern. Similarly, a lack of communication between students and teachers (in this case of course the causes are more elaborate), can prevent students from learning writing. Many authors and administrators find problems with the way in which teachers teach their courses. Authors like Ephron(6) feel that writing instructors do not focus enough on the concept of revision and fail to impress its importance on students. Authors like Hashimoto(7) state that teachers employ their teaching methods in ways that mislead and confuse students. Specifically, Hashimoto feels that teachers use heuristics(a heuristic is a procedure that helps students explore creative problems and enhances their interpretive powers) in ways that exceed their limits. Another view that authors like Barth(8) take is to assume that there are very few good teachers of writing. They feel that students need to search until they find good teachers and good programs. All these authors present problems associated with teachers but overlook the major problem that teachers need to correct-- the communication gap between them and their students. Consider Ephron’s problem first. If teachers were to communicate what they valued most in a clear, effective way then they will be able to show their students the importance of revision in a manner that would ensure that the message got across. The same is true in Hashimoto’s case. If the communication issue is resolved, then teachers will be able to communicate the limitations of their teaching methods to their students. The major problem that Barth feels students might find in their teachers is that the teacher might not be ‘right’ for them. One of the criteria for a ‘right’ teacher is that the student should be able to communicate easily with the teacher and vice-versa. If teachers did not have a communication problem, then students would not have to hunt through schools and colleges for good teachers. In a nutshell, most problems with teachers would be reduced if teachers and students could resolve this problem of communication. The main cause for the persistence of the teacher-student communication problem the fact that very few people recognize that the problem exists. Authors like Rose and Connors(8) who advocate new models do not see poor communication as a problem that might prevent the implementation of their models. Authors like Flower and Hayes who advocate new research into creative thought do not see that any new information gained through research may never reach students due to poor student-teacher communication. Authors like Hashimoto and Barth pay very little attention to this problem even though it is a problem that is fundamental to the problems that they discuss. Most of these authors seem to take student-teacher communication for granted and this is a major cause for the communication problem. When authors and administrators do not recognize that such a problem exists, then no steps are taken to eliminate it. Communication is a difficult thing to check and this might be one of the reasons why very few people have identified a problem with it. It is almost impossible for teachers to check whether students have understood the importance of things like revision and outlining. It takes surveys like those conducted by the NAEP and Lapointe to indicate that there is in fact a problem with teacher-student communication. Other factors also contribute to the student-teacher communication problem. These factors can be grouped into three categories: student related causes, teacher related causes and model related causes. Student Related Causes: Many students are uncomfortable when their work is evaluated or commented upon. These students prefer to remain anonymous under-achievers instead of approaching their teachers for help. Students also lose interest in writing very easily. When confronted with a task that demands concentration and creative thought, most students find it all to easy to give up and accept whatever grade they might receive, instead of making a conscious effort to write. These students fail to realize the importance of being able to write well. The amount of attention each student receives from the teacher also contributes towards the amount of student- teacher communication that takes place. If class are large, then teachers are forced to divide their attention and cannot focus on the problems of individual students. As a result, students do not receive adequate feedback concerning their writing or help regarding problems that are specific to themselves. (Connors) Teacher Related Causes: Lapointe’s statistics and the NAEP surveys show that quite a few schools employ part-time or underqualified teachers to teach writing. This naturally, leads to poor student-teacher communication since teachers may never been trained to communicate their ideas clearly and effectively. In addition, time constraints and work overloads prevent teachers from putting all their effort into teaching students to write well. There is also an obvious lack of motivation among teachers. They are not compensated enough for the work they do presently and have no desire to put in more work for the same pay. After a while, teachers fail to see students as individuals and class them together into general categories (Rose(3)). This kind of categorization prevents teachers from communicating with each student and helping each student with his/her difficulties. Instead, teachers tend to deal with whole groups of students at a time and therefore ‘dilute’ whatever information they are trying to communicate. Model Related Causes: Both teachers and students are affected by problems that result from the model of writing that is being conveyed. Writing models that incorporate large amounts of grammar increase the communication problem because they seem to convey the message that writing is mainly a mechanical process and that grammatically correct writing is good writing. Students are confused by such models because teachers obviously want writing that is creative as well as grammatically correct but students only catch the grammatically correct part (Connors). Inappropriate models also suppress the importance of writing. For example treating writing as a skill and not a discipline tends to place writing one step below everything else in students' minds. Thus, students do not pay much attention to writing classes and fail to understand the importance of writing from their teachers. This lack of interest on the part of the student aggravates the student- teacher communication problem (Rose). The above list of causes serves to illustrate the wide range of factors that contribute to the communication issue. The ideal solution to this problem will ensure that teachers communicate in a clear and effective manner. As much ambiguity as possible should be eliminated from teaching methods and writing courses. Students should perceive clearly the model that is being conveyed and understand the goals of their writing courses. The first step towards the solution of the communication problem is to impress upon teachers and academicians the need for effective communication between students and teachers. This can be done by conducting detailed surveys that are aimed at identifying poor student- teacher communication in schools and colleges. These surveys should be conducted by an educational agency that can make the results of these surveys known to the right people (example the NAEP). If teachers and educators begin to see that a problem exists with communication and if they understand the importance of resolving such a problem, the educational system will be more inclined to change. It is important to realize that this solution is not limited to writing classes. Teachers of science or math courses can employ similar methods to find out what their students learn. For example, a Physics professor would be able to ascertain whether students are learning concepts or just memorizing formulae that solve problems. Once teachers associate students’ learning problems with a possible problem in communications, they will be on the lookout for ways in which to check and correct such communications problems. One way in which student-teacher communication can be monitored is for teachers to construct questionnaires for their student. These questionnaires will attempt to find out what the students think the teacher is saying and what students think is important to their teachers. If there is a discrepancy between what students think and what teachers think, then there is a definite communication problem. These questionnaires will help teachers find out what students think of parts of the writing process that teachers don't usually see, for example the concepts of revision and outlining. A question like ‘Do you think revision is important?’ or ‘Do you think your teacher thinks revision is important?’ will show exactly what students have learned about the importance of revision in contrast to what the teacher thinks they should have learned. If teachers’ surveys indicate that there is a problem with teacher- student communication, then teachers should analyze the possible causes for such a problem and try and isolate the most likely one. A major cause might be that students show an apathy towards writing and are essentially ‘turned off’ during their writing classes. To combat this, teachers could re-iterate the importance of writing by illustrating its use in fields as divergent as advertising and philosophy. They could also assign more interesting writing tasks and involve students more in the class by encouraging discussions. Another major cause, writing anxiety might be combated by increasing the availability of teachers. Teachers could have special office hours where students could meet them in private and discuss their writing problems. Reduced class sizes would also help in making the teacher more accessible to students. If students are introduced to writing early and made to write on a regular basis, then much of the current fear of writing would be eliminated. Finally, teachers with communication problems should investigate the model of writing that they employ. Poor models are a major contributor to the communication problem. The model should present writing as an important discipline or at least as a necessary skill. The model should also portray writing as being a creative process and not a mechanical one (Rose). To ensure that teachers eventually follow good models, premier educational institutions should incorporate writing courses with approved models in their curriculum. Most other institutions will automatically follow these examples and bad models would be phased out (Rose). But altering the model does not ensure that students are learning the correct model since a possible communication problem might still exist. Teachers need to monitor their students’ work constantly to see whether their students are absorbing the right concepts. Though helpful, these solutions are not problem free. The major problem with them is that they will take time to implement. The key to this solution is that the problem must be recognized and that itself will take a lot of time. After that, teaching methods and models that have been used for years will have to be changed and teachers familiarized with new ones. Even coping with required changes in class sizes will take time. Lastly, it will take time to perfect a method of monitoring student-teacher communication. Researchers will have to experiment on many classes before they come up with an effective survey. Another major problem with these solutions is that they demand a lot of work from teachers but promise very little in return. Teachers will still be paid the same in spite of the increased amount of work they will have to put in. There is no proverbial carrot luring teachers to implement these solutions. Unless administrators realize that it is unreasonable to ask so much of teachers without rewarding them suitably, the present state of affairs will persist. Despite the above problems, I think that these solutions are good ones because they almost guarantee success. Firstly, most of these solutions deal directly with teachers. In this way, much of the bureaucratic delays that occur when solutions depend upon layers of management to implement them is avoided. Beginning teachers can be trained to detect and correct any communication problems before they ever step into a classroom. Secondly, much can be learned from experience. In the process of implementing these solutions, teachers will learn a lot about communicating with their students and about those parts of writing that are most difficult to communicate and understand. They might use such information to restructure their courses. In conclusion, I would like to state that given enough time and reasonably motivated teachers, these solutions can almost eradicate the communication problem, or at the very least remove most of its harmful effects. References 1. NAEP: “Students Lack Skills in Writing and Critical Thinking” (Feb. 1987, Phi Delta Kappan v68,484(2)) 2. Lapointe: “The State of Instruction in Reading and Writing in U.S. Elementary Schools” 3. Rose: “The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University” (College English, Vol. 47, No. 4, Pages 341-59) 4. Connors: “Mechanical Correctness as a Focus in Composition Instruction” (College Composition and Communication. Vol. 36, No.1, pp.. 61-72) 5. Flower & Hayes: “The Cognition Of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem” (College Composition, 31, Pages 21-32) 6. Ephron: “Revision and Life: Take it from the Top Again” (New York Times Book Review, Page 7) 7. Hashimoto: “Structured Heuristic Procedures: Their Limitations” (College Composition and Communication, Vol.36, No.1, Page 72-81) 8. Barth : “Writing: Can it be Taught?” (New York Times Book Review, v90, Page 1(3) Contribution Examples