We are Teaching Values not Just Skills

         

Picture Credit: Robert Alan De Beaugrand
http://beaugrande.com/new_intro_to_study.htm

   In the article “Contemporary Composition” James A. Berlin’s argues that while the “composing process is always and everywhere the same because writer, reality, reader and language are always and everywhere the same” it is imperative that composition teachers need to examine how they teach writing because the students cognitive understanding of their world determines their writing (Berlin 765).  He challenges the idea that writing is simply about grammar and punctuation, and instead stresses what is more important is teachers need to be aware that they are “teaching a way of experiencing the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it” (776); furthermore, he states “The test of one’s competence as a composition instructor...resides in being able to recognize and justify the version of the process being taught, complete with all of its significance for the student” (777).  Berlin believes that teachers are not just offering a technical skill but instructors are teaching a way of understanding.  He forms this conviction on the differences in how rhetorical theories have different approaches to how people arrive at truth, reality, perception and knowledge by using language.

When different composition methods are based off of leading theories of rhetoric, these differences within the leading theories are not simply surface variations but have profound differences in how the writer perceives, understands reality and truth, and interprets them through writing—the theories are reflective on how knowledge is gained and how the writer communicates this knowledge: “Rhetorical theories differ from each other in the way writer, reality, audience, and language are conceived” (766).  Therefore, he states that the focus of pedagogical analysis should actually be centered on the relationship between the instructor and the student: “[I]t is not difficult to see the writer-reality-audience-language relationship as underlying, at a deeper structural level, each of these three stages…this deeper structure determines the shape that instruction in prewriting” (765).  By understanding where the philosophical underpinnings of each rhetorical theory, an instructor can then be clear in whether their goals for students, syllabus and instruction line up for student success.  More often than not, Berlin argues that because instructors do not understand the philosophical basis of rhetoric they frustrate their students with confusing and often conflicting messages throughout instruction.

Berlin uses four of the most leading rhetorical theories used in composition instruction: Neo-Aristotelian Rhetoric or Classical Rhetoric, Positivists or Current Traditionalists, Neo- (Berlin)Platonists or Expressionists, and the New Rhetoricians or Epistemic Rhetoric.   Berlin analyses these dominant theories by explaining the philosophy of each theory and how they affect the practices in the instruction of writing: how truth or knowledge is gained, language and it role in the perception of reality, and finally the role of the audience. 

In Classical Rhetoric knowledge is gained through critical thinking, and that truth is existed before language. The idea of truth before language is also argued by Positivist and Platonic theory as well.   Classical Rhetoric is not concerned as much with the audience, but with the structure of rhetoric.   Positivists, on the other hand, believe that truth is achieved through the human experience and by the scientific method. They also use metaphoric language to express the unexplainable truth and the author’s responsibility to the audience is enlightenment. Meanwhile, Neo-Platonists argue that truth already resides within the individual, and errors are found through the audience responding to the author’s work.  Finally, New Rhetoric believes that “[t]ruth is dynamic and dialectical” (774), furthermore without language truth cannot be determined and the role of the audience is important because it is equal in the relationship between writer, language, reality and the audience.  Berlin writes that he is convinced “that the pedagogical approach of the New Rhetoricians is the most intelligent and most practical alternative available” because, “it best serves the interests of our students” (766). He concludes his argument from that from the “point of pedagogy, New Rhetoric treats in depth all the offices of classical rhetoric that apply to written language-invention, arrangement, and style” (776).  

Moreover, he says it does so because it falls back on a dialogue and the relationship between the writer and peer review (or audience), in which the writer then returns to reflect upon their writings and re-writes and either finds truth and gains knowledge. It is easy to agree with Berlin that it is important for instructors to create mindful instruction which challenges and encourages different ways of thinking so that students can move beyond the basic functions of writing and engage in their world in a critical manner; furthermore, the importance in how the teacher clearly articulates and justifies the particular pedagogical theory being used in that process to the students is also easily understood.  However, the article does not clearly explain how an instructor is to take this understanding and apply it in practice.

Discussion Questions:

How would understanding of each theoretical schoolings work or translate into practice for composition instructors?  If understanding what theoretical practice you adhere to, how do you align your instruction, syllabus, and student goals to reflect this?

How does one recognize what schooling of theoretical schooling their practice or instruction may adhere too?

                                   

Works Cited

Berlin, James A. "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogoical Theories." College English (1982): 765-777.

A very brief summary of the article written by Douglas Hesse,

 "Writing and Learning to Write:  A Modest Bit of History and Theory for Writing Students"


             Hesse writes that there is not a "correct formula for writing" period.  Therefore, many different strategies exist in which an instructor can use to teach students. He also stresses that writing is a process that takes time and practice to master. Therefore,  Hesse's main point in the article is "the real proof and practice come only when one engages specific strategies for, say, analyzing an audience, and only when one applies those strategies to specific writing situations."  This idea of being mindful of what strategy an instructor is using strongly echoes what Berlin was stressing in his above article...let your pedagogical theory be reflected throughout the entire process of instruction for the benefit and success of the student.



Discussion Question:
If we first need to justify our pedagogical theory used in practice and furthermore be mindful of the strategy used for specific writing situation, how then would an instructor construct their rubric? Would you use one?