Analysis Example 1 Over the last century, the realization that many students are not being taught to communicate effectively in writing has led to much concern and debate among educators. The wash of literature which has resulted yields many interesting ideas on teaching students writing. Basically, authors can be classified as taking one of three major approaches to the problem. Some authors take a researching approach; they attempt to solve the problems that they see based on past research, or suggest new research to develop new solutions. Other authors believe that they can help students to help themselves; by writing essays directed at students, they hope to communicate solutions to the problems students have. Finally, in the classroom approach, authors analyze the situation and suggest ways for teachers to improve their teaching of writing. Flower and Hayes, Archie LaPointe, and the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) all take a researching approach to the problem of teaching writing. Flower and Hayes report on research they conducted concerning the metaphor of discovery, and the way in which good and poor writers handle the process of writing. (1) They take the position that all students should follow the observed example of the good writers, spending more time paying attention to the problem area and giving more attention to rhetorical considerations. These ideas should theoretically help writers significantly, but some questions remain. Flower and Hayes assert that it is easy to teach students to explore rhetorical problems, but they don't provide much evidence, and one might ask why it hasn't been done before, if it is so simple. Obviously, it is not as simple as they suggest. LaPointe's position is based primarily on research done by the NAEP. (2) He uses a large body of information as evidence that students cannot write well, and that the situation is not improving. He concludes that the best way for students to learn is simply by writing more. He also believes that with the large body of teachers searching for good teaching techniques, it is quite likely that more effective techniques will rapidly emerge. While it may be true that new techniques can be developed, it is questionable how easily they might be applied. Many teachers are overworked already, and probably cannot grade additional writing without letting the quality of feedback suffer. Of course, such problems, like teacher compensation problems which LaPointe mentions, can be solved with enough money, but money is never easy to come by in a school system. One can only hope that some miraculous new teaching technique which is not teacher-intensive will emerge from the community, and even that sounds implausible. The NAEP also has some suggestions for improving student writing in a report they produced. (3) They suggest that students need more feedback from their teachers and need to be supported in their writing in all of their classes. Again, however, this means significantly more work for teachers, and unless school systems can find some funding, this seems like an impractical recommendation. Unlike LaPointe and Flower and Hayes, Nora Ephron and John Barth both take a "tell them about it" approach to the problem. They use their writing to instruct students directly in ways to become better writers. Ephron's exhortation to students is to revise, revise, revise. (4 ) Only through extensive revision, she claims, is it possible to produce truly good writing. Revision certainly can help to improve writing quality in a given work, especially if peers or teachers are involved in the revision process, and with constructive comments, students might even learn some amount of grammar in the process. However, as Ephron herself notes, younger students often are simply not inclined toward revision; a talent for revision may not be developed until after many students are out of school and no longer receiving instruction in writing. Also, time constraints on teachers, and, to some degree, students as well, often restrict severely the amount of revision that can be done and make the process less useful to students. Barth's recommendation to students is somewhat more general; he suggests that they follow a "fourfold path" of experiencing life fully, following earlier writers, practicing the craft of writing, and being criticized and critiqued by one's peers. (5) He also suggests a number of universities which have good writing programs for students who are so inclined. Some students of writing may be able to learn to write using Barth's ideas, but the following the fourfold path is clearly not a task for novices. Students following the fourfold path must have the dedication to keep practicing their craft, and must have peers who are qualified to judge their work, among other things. Most students do not meet these requirements. Clearly, Barth's writing is directly at an elite group of serious writing students, and completely misses average students, who are probably of greater concern in the literacy crisis. Irvin Hashimoto, Robert Connors, and Mike Rose approach the writing problem in a somewhat different fashion, by identifying specific teaching practices which are ineffective or counterproductive, and suggesting ways in which teachers can change their behavior. Hashimoto considers specifically the overuse of "heuristics", devices intended to help students generate ideas about a problem. (6) He says that heuristics are much more fallible than is often said, and that heuristic failure may lead to much student disappointment. Hashimoto's suggestion is that the use of heuristics be reduces, and that teachers help their students in cases where students are at a loss for ideas. This should help to solve the problem presented. When compared to a solution such as increased revision, however, which claims to improve student writing in all areas, the problem Hashimoto solves seems relatively insignificant. Hashimoto's suggestion is generally not a useful one for improving student writing on a broad scale. The teaching practice Connors focuses on is an overemphasis on mechanical correctness in teaching writing. (7) He explains that, for historical reasons, primarily student writing deficiencies and teacher constraints, writing courses have become mostly a place to teach grammar and mechanics. Modern day students thus lack any training in the rhetorical considerations of writing, Connors says. The solution which he suggests is simply striking a better balance between mechanical and rhetorical considerations in teaching writing. A good balance between mechanics and rhetoric in the classroom should improve students' writing from a rhetorical point of view. However, teachers are still overworked, and, as in the past, may not have the time to do detailed rhetorical analysis of student papers; Connors does not present a solution to this problem. In addition, students continue to write poorly from a grammatical standpoint; focusing less on grammar is unlikely to improve this situation. The primary goal of Connors' work, however, was to point out the existence of a problem. Mike Rose expands on Connors' ideas, giving more reasons why there exists an overemphasis on mechanics, or, as Rose says it, why teachers take a "behavioristic" view of writing. (8) He also points out other related problems, such as the reductionist language teachers use and the mistaken idea that students are "illiterate". Rose concludes that, in order to solve these problems, teachers need to reconsider the language they use and the way they think about teaching writing. With less emphasis on behaviorism, students should receive a broader, less mechanical treatment of writing in their classes. However, as Rose admits, it may be very difficult for teachers to make this change. Rose also notes that many students still do not write well mechanically, but fails to address this issue. And, once again, many of the original causes of the behavioristic approach, such as overworked teachers, are still a problem. Until teacher loads are reduced, it seems unlikely that teachers will be able to give significantly more attention to their students' writing. There are certainly a wide range of approaches to the literacy issue, and all have some merit. While no single author addressing the issue completely solves even a small part of the problem, it is instructive to consider the suggested solutions and possibly even attempt to implement them. As Hashimoto indicates, the generation of ideas is an important step in the writing process. The current state of affairs will form the basis for future ideas which hopefully will be able to significantly improve the literacy situation in this country. Notes: 1. Flower, Linda & Hayes, John R. "The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem." College Composition and Communication. 31.? (1980): 31. 2. LaPointe, Archie. "The State of Instruction in Reading and Writing in U.S. Elementary Schools." Phi Delta Kappan. 68 (1986): 135. 3. National Assessment of Educational Progress. "Students lack skills in writing and critical thinking: NAEP." Phi Delta Kappan. 68 (1987), 484. 4. Ephron, Nora. "Revision and Life: Take it From the Top—Again." New York Times Book Review. 9 Nov. 1986: 7. 5. Barth, John. "Writing: Can It Be Taught?" New York Times Book Review. 16 June 1985: 1. 6. Hashimoto, Irvin. "Structured Heuristic Procedures: Their Limitations." College Composition and Communication. 36.1 (1985): 72-85. 7. Connors, Robert J. "Mechanical Correctness as a Focus in Composition Instruction." College Composition and Communication. 36.1 (1985): 61-72. 8. Rose, Mike. "The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University." College English. 47.4 (1985), 341-59. Analysis Example 2 For a number of years now, authors and administrators have been identifying problems with the teaching of writing in our schools and colleges. Numerous problems have been addressed and just as many solutions proposed. However, one of the main problems, namely poor student-teacher communication, has not been given the consideration it deserves. People fail to realize that without good communication between student and teachers, no matter what other reforms are implemented students will fail to learn. In his article 'The State of instruction in Reading and Writing in the U.S. Elementary Schools', Lapointe argues that there is a conflict between what teachers think is important and what students feel teachers think is important. For example, Lapointe points out that while one half of fourth-grade teachers surveyed felt that outlining was important, only 20% of their students felt the same way and while 90% of the teachers felt that the quality of students' ideas was important, only half of the students reported that they had received comments in this area. These statistics seem to indicate that there are 'inconsistencies between what teachers value highly and what students perceive them to value' (Lapointe). This problem is significant, in part, because of the relationship between students and their teachers. That is, students look to their teachers as experts and trust them to provide guidance about important subject matter, educational goals, etc. Thus, if teachers, for one reason or another, fail to effectively communicate this information to students (e.g., the teacher presents one topic or subject in class, but ultimately evaluates the student on another), the student's sense of trust may be violated, ultimately affecting the students educational motivation and interest. Authors have used two basic approaches to illustrate the problems that plague the teaching of writing. One of them is the Incorrect Model approach. Authors who use this approach consider the problem with writing instruction to be the use of an incorrect model . The other approach is the Poor Teachers approach. Authors who use this approach feel that teachers are not doing their job properly and this is what prevents students from learning to write well. There are three positions under the Incorrect Model approach, the first of which deals with the fact that there is too much focus on the more mundane, mechanical aspects of writing. In his article ‘Mechanical Correctness as a Focus in Composition Instruction’ (College Composition and Communication Vol.36, No.1, Pages 61-72), Connors adopts this position and points out that a result of too much emphasis on the mechanical aspects of writing is that writing courses are saturated with lessons in grammar. He recommends a model in which students are taught about the creative processes that are involved in writing as well as grammar instead of just grammar. This is definitely beneficial to students since they will now be able to utilize the creative processes involved on writing in an effective way. However, authors who advocate this position assume that teachers will be able to convey this model to their students. They overlook the fact that students might not perceive this model due to the fact that their teachers are not able to convey the importance of such a model. The second position under the Wrong Model approach questions the relevancy of the Discovery metaphor when applied to writing. In their essay ‘The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem’ (College Composition, 31, Pages 21-32), Flower and Hayes see a problem in the fact that people are using models of writing that consider writing to be a discovery process. This causes writers to become frustrated since they think that ideas lying around waiting to be discovered but cannot find any. As a possible solution to writing problems, Flower and Hayes propose more research into creative processes in the hope that if we learn more about these processes, we might be able to teach students more about how to go about them. Supporters of this position believe that writing is in fact a creative process and that writers create ideas and not discover them. They would like to see the discovery metaphor dropped. What these authors fail to see is that merely changing the model of writing so that students perceive writing to be a creative process does not assist them in seeing exactly what creative processes are involved. Even if new research unearths more information about creative processes, a problem like poor student-teacher communication could prevent this information from being passed on in a meaningful way. The final position that uses the Wrong Model approach asserts that the present model of writing is reductive and misleading. One of the authors that takes this position is Mike Rose. In his article ‘The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University’ (College English, Vol. 47, No. 4, Pages 341-359), Rose states that writing is considered by many to be inferior to other disciplines and that the current model of writing treats it as a skill or tool instead of as an essential creative process. He would like to see writing as a central part of the college curriculum. This would illustrate the importance of writing and dispel any feelings that people have to the contrary. He also believes that the teaching of writing should be redefined so that teachers analyze students’ errors more thoroughly and try to find out why they make errors instead of just pointing the errors out. The result of these measures would be that students obtain a clearer conception of what writing is, since they have a better model. Also teachers would be able to show students why they make the errors which would help students avoid them. Rose’s ideal model does not fix a possible communication problem between students and teachers. Thus, even if students are clear as to the importance of writing, and are motivated to learn it, they might not be able to. The Poor Teachers approach consists of authors who take positions that attribute the cause of the problems in the teaching of writing to bad teaching. However, each of the four positions has its own set of causes and solutions. The first of these positions is one that employs statistics to illustrate where the problems with the teaching of writing lie. In their report ‘Students lack skills in writing and critical thinking’ (Phi Delta Kappan, v68, 484(2)), the NAEP researchers provide data that clearly shows the insufficient level of writing that many students possess. Only 28% of 11th graders were able to write adequate or better papers, less than half were able to write an adequate story. The NAEP researchers feel that students are not being taught well. They feel that students should be taught ‘to think about what to do and how to do it as they are engaged in the process of writing.’ In ‘The State of Instruction in Reading and Writing in U.S. Elementary Schools’ (Phi Delta Kappan. v68, page 135(4)), Lapointe provides convincing statistics that illustrate that there are problems with the teaching of writing. He indicates that there are problems with the attitude that students have towards writing and with the teachers of writing. He feels that there is a conflict between the what teachers think is important and what students feel teachers think is important. He implies that teachers should improve their work generally and focus on making students practice writing more. Authors who use this position do not cite specific solutions and fail to indicate any methods in which their solutions can be implemented. They seem to focus more on stressing the nature of the problem and pointing out that teachers need to do their job better. The second 'Poor Teachers' position indicates that teachers are not teaching what they should be. In her article ‘Revision and Life: Take it from the top again’ (New York Times Book Review, page 7), Ephron feels that students are not being taught the importance of revision in the process of good writing. She considers revision to be of prime importance and advises students to start revising early. Since her advice to students is direct, students who follow her advice could avoid having to depend on teachers to teach them about revision. However, students who are dependent solely on their teachers might never learn the importance of revision if they misinterpret what their teachers consider to be important. A third position that can be classified under the 'Poor Teachers' approach is one that does not believe that all teachers can teach writing even if they try. This is Barth’s problem with the teachers of writing, as explained by him in his article ‘Writing: can it be taught?’ (New York Times Book Review. v90, page 1(3)). He feels that students should go and look for teachers who suit them best. He implies that students should look for teachers who have no problem communicating with their students. This would be a good solution to the problem except for the fact that not all students can find a teachers that communicate well. Such teachers can only teach a limited number of students and as a consequence, a large number of students will be forced to learn under poor teachers. It is much better to improve the overall standard of teaching instead of relying on the few good teachers to teach everyone. The last of the ‘Poor Teachers’ positions tries to identify and correct a few of the mistakes that many teachers make. Irvin Hashimoto makes use of this position to try and solve some of the problems that plague the teaching of writing. Hashimoto feels that teachers overuse heuristics (a heuristic is a procedure that helps students explore creative problems and enhances their interpretive powers), rely too much on them and try to avoid structure in writing (‘Structured Heuristic Procedures: Their Limitations. College Composition and Communication, Vol.36, No.1, Page 72-81). He states that teachers should introduce an element of structure if only for the purpose of providing a guideline for students. Hashimoto thinks that the solution lies in teachers becoming more patient and understanding. He also thinks that teachers should tell students what to write about if necessary and even help by telling them what to write. This will alleviate the communication problem a little since teachers will spend more time in teaching and helping students. Students will be able understand better what the teacher is trying to say. The only drawback is that this solution makes no provision for the fact that students may still be confused as to what is model of writing is being communicated. If teachers were to help by merely telling students what to write about or what to write, students might not be able to penetrate these examples and see the basic model that is being conveyed. Both the Wrong Model approach and the Poor Teachers approach analyze important problems and present plausible solutions. However the authors who use these approaches do not see that unless the communication problem between students and teachers is resolved, solutions to other problems are seriously disabled. Teachers should communicate clearly and effectively. There should be no ambiguity in students’ minds as to what the goals of the class are, as to what is required of them or as to the importance of what is being taught. Only then will the problem of poor communication between teachers and students be resolved. With this problem out of the way, other problems can be tackled with the knowledge that a solution can depend upon teachers communicating correctly with students and still succeed. Analysis Example 3 The need to write effectively is tremendous in a society such as ours. If an individual hopes to succeed, it is necessary for that person to be able to pass thoughts to others in a way that inspires a desired action. Unfortunately, the ability to write effectively is too frequently equated with the mastery of grammatical correctness. While it may be necessary to write grammatically correctly, the desire and need to communicate effectively requires development of rhetoric in one's writing. While the available scope of authors agree on this need for rhetoric, there exists a rift concerning where the problem lies. One group of authors sees a need for a change in the perception of writing instruction and writing in general. The second group of authors sees a need for change in teaching methods. Rose, Connors, and Barth are the three authors who lie in the perceptual group. These authors feel that the primary reason that there are problems with the way in which writing is taught is that people generally perceive writing instruction, particularly at the college level, as an unimportant aid to education in other fields. They also feel that there exists a general feeling that writing is itself more of a tool for communication, that there is little need for substance. Inside of this group lie differing ideas on what the reasons and solutions for these problems are. Rose sees a problem with the general way in which terms related to language education are used. Connors sees historical developments in the American education system at the root of the problem. John Barth feels the problem is in the perception by many that the ability to write well can be neither taught nor learned. All of these authors have varied suggestions for fixing these problems, as well. Mike Rose is especially convinced that a major reason there is a lack of emphasis on rhetoric lies in the common misperceptions regarding the nature of the language. Terms such as "skill", "remedial", and "illiterate, " as they are used by most people, quantify the language, a practice which Rose feels implies the need to only teach grammar. Rose feels that the only way to solve these problems is to de-emphasize this tremendous quantification of the language. Beyond that, he feels that the terms used to classify both students and the English courses they take need to be reformed, so that they may become more applicable to what is actually being taught in those classes. On one hand, Rose's suggestions would create a better understanding of writing instruction, as well as the certifying the need for that instruction and its place in the education hierarchy. On the other hand, what Rose suggests may also only create a string of new terms that will also eventually develop false connotations. Also of concern is the fact that it takes time to make people change. In a worst case scenario, by the time the education system could change its terms to fit Rose's standards, people may already be viewing these new terms in the same ways that they viewed the old - in a negative, quantitative sense. Robert Connors also suggests that perceptual problems of the English language have caused the major shift away from rhetoric instruction. Connors feels the problem lies in the historical spectrum of the development of language instruction. As the United States was growing as a nation, so was its education system. The pride of the Americans was badly hurt when outsiders began taking shots at the Americans for their general ignorance of proper English skills, causing a movement to institute writing instruction at all levels of the education system. Unfortunately, the money was not available to devote the manpower to teaching these new English courses properly, leading to a reliance on grading just grammar, a method which was speedy. This system of teaching writing as proper grammar became instilled in the system. It is still the way that most people today view writing instruction. This has prevented some development of rhetoric instruction. In order to solve this problem, Connors feels that a nice medium between rhetoric and grammar must be found. This obviously has its merit; it would allow an easy shift in teaching by maintaining one aspect and increasing the other. But there also exists the problem of finding that suitable balance. Getting all parties involved to agree would be an amazing, if not impossible, feat. The last member of the perceptual group takes a decidedly different position. John Barth sees a problem in finding a place where one can learn writing. He feels that too many people feel that writing, in this case being good literature, can be neither taught nor learned. However, he bears witness to the large number of excellent entries to contests every year as proof that people are learning how to write. Barth feels that the solution lies in finding the right place to learn the craft. In doing so, people will be learning their rhetorical language skills in a system that is already functioning and recognized as a reliable source of language instruction. Barth benefits the situation by focusing attention on those sources of good writing instruction, which could eventually lead to others modeling their systems after these successful programs. On the other hand, there are many prerequisites to getting into these programs that Barth mentions. The universities are not only costly, but they'll only take those who already show talent. Other qualified instructors, possibly master authors, will not just take anyone under their wings, either. While the authors who are in the perceptual camp find the problem in peoples' perception of the language, there is yet another group of authors who see the problem in a different light. This other camp of authors feels that the problem with the lack of emphasis on rhetoric can be solved through changes in methods of instruction. These authors include the NAEP, LaPointe, Ephron, Flower and Hayes, and Hashimoto. Though they all feel that changes in method are necessary, they differ in their views on these topics. The NAEP report states, "Except for the simplest tasks, most U.S. schoolchildren cannot adequately express their ideas and opinions in writing... cannot express themselves well enough to ensure that their writing will accomplish its intended purpose." The NAEP found that U.S. students are critically lacking in creative thinking skills. As a remedy for this, the NAEP recommends that teachers help students think about what to do and how to do it "as they are engaged in the process of writing." The report also suggests that teachers should provide more feedback on the work performed by students. The NAEP's suggestions are beneficial in that they work to increase the communication skills of the students, not only in their writing, but also in verbal communication, as this will be required for proper communication with teachers, friends, and employers in their futures. Unfortunately, there also exists the problem that these ideas place a great deal of strain on the teachers, many of whom are already overtaxed. Additionally, there is a too much credence placed in the idea that increasing the amount of communication will develop better communication skills - that it won't only serve to reinforce previous poor skills. Archie LaPointe's article is based on information obtained from the NAEP report. Essentially what LaPointe concluded was that the problems facing writing can be solved if students read and write more. According to LaPointe, "About 30% if the fourth-graders reported that they were asked to read fewer than five pages a week." He goes on to state, "... better readers are better writers and ... the two skills are systematically related." LaPointe's solution is simply that more stress must be placed on reading and writing in the classroom. This has strengths in that teachers, according to LaPointe, already focus on reading to a large degree, and a great deal of progress is being made to make children better readers. All that has to be added, then, is a further stress of writing instruction. On the down side, this takes more time on the parts of both students and teachers. Students would have to devote more time out of class to read and write more, while teachers would have to find more readings, devote more class time, and spend more time grading the additional writing assignments. Nora Ephron feels she has a very workable and effective solution. She feels that too many students, in their view that writing is to a large degree correct grammar, have the impression that the intent of revision is solely to find and correct grammatical errors. She feels that this is unfortunate, though understandable; it took her many years to realize the worth of revision. Ephron feels that the teaching of proper revision would add to the development of rhetoric in writing. She feels proper revision entails a great deal of rewriting and rethinking. Ephron's views are strong in that they provide a way for creative insight by the author in a technique that usually is improving the work. Unfortunately, it is likely that many students will see this as the same old drudgery work and will overlook its value. Flower and Hayes see lack of emphasis on rhetoric being solved by adding a method to develop intuitive thoughts. While it is good to base writing on personal experience, it is sometimes difficult for students to find the experience and relate it to the subject. At these times, Flower and Hayes feel that a tool to promote creative thoughts would help add to the depth of a student's paper. This idea has its strength in that is provides either a second or alternative method to use for adding insight into a work. It finds its weakness in the possibility of this method not working either. Irvin Hashimoto feels the lack of emphasis on rhetoric stems from the incessant desire by educators to heavily rely on heuristic models, methods which promote thought and information gathering to aid in writing. Hashimoto feels that this reliance on heuristics stifles creativity. In their place, he recommends a mixture of a number of these models combined with general interaction between student and teacher. Hashimoto's main benefit is that he allows for these established heuristic methods to continue in use; he just feels that students should be exposed to numerous types with decreased emphasis on any one model. His weakness lies in his lack of addressing situations in which teachers have not overly stressed, or possibly not used, heuristics. As can be easily seen from the above discussion, there are many differing ideas regarding just what must be done in order to inject more rhetorical ideas into writing education. The people who feel that the problem, and hence, the solution, lie in the changing the perception of writing have some valid points. Indeed, much of the problems that are facing writing instructors today are rooted in a quagmire of improper perceptions of just what writing is. The generalized solution of these authors is to change the perception of the public, and of educators, so that they may see the "richness" of the language. This is fine; however, the problem of how to bestow this new thought upon people is up in the air. When one wants to change the thinking of a large populace, that person is looking at a lot of time, money, and effort. In addition, that person may also find that the entire attempt becomes futile - if the people cannot be convinced. Those who stand on the side of changing methods of teaching stand a better chance of actually seeing their ideas come to fruition. They are dealing with a limited number of individuals, all of who are active in the business of teaching writing. If enough of these people can be convinced to change according to these methods, then the stance of writing may improve. An improvement in the quality of writing in this area may also help to spawn changes in the perceptual area, as well; this would benefit all concerned; the teachers who want to improve their craft, the students who will be gaining these invaluable tools, and the nation as a whole which will be receiving a group of first rate communicators from its schools. Analysis Examples