Students of both mathematics and English composition learn by emulation. Surrounding a particular technique or theorem within a mathematical text is almost always a series of examples and solutions. Composition textbooks, like Pearson publishing’s First-Year Writing, is no different, in that a discussion of technique for example, a set of bulleted lists outlining successful strategies for writing summaries, is closely followed with examples offered at different stages of the writing process. If we were to imagine the differences in the solutions of a math word problem and a rhetorical problem we might say that one is absolute and the other not. But let us first concern ourselves with the similarities, the most pronounced being that success in both situations requires practice. I believe that there is a distinct advantage to be gained from the rewording of typical FYC composition assignments, whose language we will see tends to be nebulous, from a suggestive and exploratory tone, to a more defined objective-oriented tone. By reforming the vague, subjective offerings of the FYC prompt to more closely model the constricted and absolute language (and solution) of the mathematical word problem, it might be possible to create the illusion in student’s minds that there is a definite solution, a definite way to master a particular aspect of composition, thus reshaping what tends to be a lack of confidence in ability into a more directive-driven sense of achievement and ultimately drag out from the student’s minds the idea that FYC has no point and that writing is impossible to learn.
It seems necessary to preface the following discussion with the following disclaimer: The reshaping of composition texts around the country to match the proposed change listed above is impractical (and possibly unwise) not only because of its deterministic nature and its perceived limitations on student product, but due to obvious financial and temporal constraints. However, I have a firm belief in the ability of theoretical dialog to facilitate unconscious change. My only intention is to lodge pieces of this paper into the space of our unconscious. Rethinking old and hypothesizing new ideas is absolutely necessary given the ever-evolving demands of the composition classroom.
I propose the following method, based on Linda Flower and John R. Hayes’ thoughts regarding the rhetorical problem found in their article, “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” The problem with the FYC prompts is two-fold: The first area being their vague treatment of rhetorical situation, the second, their lack of contextualizing material. I would say that the majority of students often don’t view English composition as a legitimate course; they aren’t familiar with the idea of a Rhetorical problem; and, they don’t believe their assignments are anything but exercises or practice. The rhetorical problem for Flower and Hayes includes topic, audience, and exigency (the demands) (288). Until I read this article as an English graduate student I had never once been introduced to an English assignment as a rhetorical problem. So alarmed was I at the ability of a single term to clarify for me what had seemed before to be only a hopeless situation, a situation that many students today feel frustrated by: the nebulous and vague objectives and description of the FYC assignment. As we will see, assignment write-ups from even the FYC program of which I am a part fall into the category of the imprecise, leading me to believe that students of our program suffer from what could be called a frustration with the tenuous. Changing the language of FYC assignments might not be the answer, as Flower and Hayes rightly point out that “the way in which people choose to define a rhetorical problem to themselves can vary greatly from writer to writer” (288). And one might argue that the last thing we need is a proposed solution that admits it carries subjective baggage. However, the change is not subtle; it is the difference between a loosely worded assignments’ request for a student response, and a precisely defined rhetorical problem’s demand for a solution. I do not agree with the implication of Hayes and Flower that the two are variants of the same thing. The two cannot be the same thing by virtue of definition, to “solve” is not the same as “to respond.”
Positioning the student within a Rhetorical problem is essential for prompting a solution to that problem. The aim of the reconfiguration of language is not to elicit a response typical of FYC assignments, but to determine a specific range of responses within a spectrum of English ‘correctness,’ and thus make the response closer to a solution. Take for example the following algebraic word problem:
A 25 foot ladder is leaned against a wall so that the ladder reaches a height of 7 feet on the wall. How far from the wall will the other end of the ladder be? (algebra.com)
Before we begin solving, we should ask a few preliminary questions: What does this problem expect from student? Does the word-problem method of delivery facilitate universally transferable learning methods? Does its language make understanding the concepts of its course and field easier or not, and if so how does it achieve its desired effect? First I will outline a method for solving the problem. The process of solving the problem will reveal what it expects of its participant.
- Determine from the problem’s text what information you are given.
- Determine for what you are solving.
- Assign the unknown variable a label
- Solve for the unknown using an appropriate formula
Those are the steps. The following is a proposed walkthrough of the problem, a walk-through that roughly adheres to the bulleted list above.
The ladder against the wall makes a right triangle.
The hypotenuse, H, is the ladder length, 25 feet.
One side of the triangle ![L[1]](file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/jola/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image002.jpg){kind=small}
is 7 feet.
What is the other length,![L[2]](file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/jola/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image004.jpg){kind=small}
?
From Pythagorean theorem,![L[1]^2+L[2]^2=H^2](file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/jola/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image006.jpg){kind=small}
![7^2+L[2]^2=25^2](file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/jola/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image008.jpg){kind=small}
![49+L[2]^2=625](file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/jola/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image010.jpg){kind=small}
![L[2]^2=576](file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/jola/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image012.jpg){kind=small}
![L[2]=14](file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/jola/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image014.jpg){kind=small}
The ladder will be 14 feet away from the wall. (Algebra.com)
What does this problem expect from student? It expects that the student has been given enough information to reach the solution. It expects that he/she is capable of finding the correct formula based on the given information, and thus that they are capable of solving the problem. Mathematical problems of this nature demand a single solution, and the use of the Pythagorean Theorem by the tutor shows us the most conventional method of dealing with a problem whose given information forces, almost deterministically, a specific type of interpretation.
While the above math problem is self-contained, it does assume an accumulated knowledge of Geometry and basic mathematics of its participant. The differences between the types of prerequisite knowledge demanded of a student of mathematics and of English lie in the solution and not the process. Math students, like English students often invent unique analytical approaches to solutions that very much differ from the indoctrinated approach offered in text books. However, different approaches in fundamental mathematics are often overlooked if they arrive at the one solution in a logical way. The assessment of mathematical work of the difficulty I am interested in focuses on solution over the process. Solution-based assessment seems to be where the rhetorical problem gains on the nebulous prompt. FYC student responses to the type of prompt currently within textbooks beckons for process-oriented creation. That is, the prompts seem designed to elicit a student response indicative of an adherence to the particular "correct" process-oriented guidelines contained in the chapter that students may or may not have read. A math student who hasn't read that chapter can only go x-distance in the field of mathematics. In English, a student can proceed x+experience at emulation, or x+innate ability to observe. A rhetorical problem would instead veer students toward product as opposed to process and as a result would rely heavily upon student's consumption of the techniques contained within the chapter. However, by contextualizing the assignments within the prompt, it might be possible to use language that evokes insights from the unconscious individual writer's experience, which has the ability, more so than a mathematical solution, to benefit the product. The contextualizing examples within prompts should attempt to tap into that area of the mind that produces confidence; that is capable of producing clear prose within a given context.
The product of FYC assignments posed as Rhetorical problems will not be perfectly assessable. I humbly admit that even a restructuring of the language will not produce a single solution void of personality and subjective delivery. It is true that writing assignments are not simply solved by plugging information into the right formatting, though on the surface it seems that a happy medium can be achieved between the language of both, response and solution-eliciting problems. The compromise might also combat the limited view that English should be either qualitative or quantitative in its assessment of student writing. The product of a reconfiguration of FYC assignment language will ideally be a piece of clear prose, one laden with a consistent set of components within the text itself, indicative of an adherence or non-adherence to the three essential components of the rhetorical problem in question: topic, audience, and exigency. A student response is subjective and we must gauge not its correctness but its adherence to particulars that students at this point are largely left to determine themselves. The process of determining the three essential components of the Rhetorical problem is an assignment in and of itself.
If we insist on retaining the nebulous language and form of our current FYC writing prompts then we must spend class time teaching students how to extrapolate the three components of the rhetorical problem from the often ridiculously vague prompts provided in textbooks. My proposition then is to eliminate the middle-man so to speak, reword the assignments themselves in language that makes explicitly clear the rhetorical problem students should find themselves in. Emulation is important, remember our Confucian analect “to learn is to“emulate,” however, if taken too far emulation attempts to undermine the idea that we are teaching students anything of tangible validity within FYC, not to mention it creates difficulties in the process of assessment. In many ways emulation is the easiest way for students to feel as though they are progressing; they see a piece of writing that is published in a textbook, they equate it with success and mould their writing style accordingly, though at sometimes dangerously high levels of similarity bordering on plagiarism. Positively, emulation facilitates directive-driven practice, forcing students to think critically about the difference between their own work and the polished subject of their emulation. Negatively, emulation gives students the illusion that there is a perfect way to compose successful writing, and if taken too far, emphasis on emulation can mislead students, pushing them toward the shores of deterministic voice, creating the bad habit of writing-to-cater, and leaving them with a feeling of their own voice’s inadequacy. At this point let us concern ourselves with the vague language used in the text of a particular FYC prompt itself.
The first assignment students submitted for a grade this semester was a summary. Without explaining the assignment as I now understand it, I will instead reproduce the assignment text in its unadulterated form, without any of the clarification the FYC team creates in subsequent conversational or experimental contexts. Let us examine this prompt and think of the ways it differs from the proposed Rhetorical problem.
Objective: To practice summarizing an article.
Description: For this assignment, you will write two summaries: one of an article and another of the data presented in a chart. Use the material on summaries in
That is the text. The following is an example of a student’s response (as the language of this prompt disallows even the haziest of solutions).
Hekker, Terry. "Paradise Lost" (p. 400 of your textbook)
“A Brief History of Malls,” by Kenneth T. Jackson discusses the progression of shopping centers through the centuries and through different cultures in the world. American society has become extremely dependent on expedient shopping to fit with their fast-paced way of life. Shopping centers have existed for centuries and began as gatherings where traders could exchange goods. Modern shopping malls include sophisticated amenities, multiple story building complexes, and have easily accessible parking lots. Underground shopping centers thrive in areas with severe weather conditions and often are considered their own “core city.” “Planned shopping centers,” began to gain popularity in the 1930s and were considered to be the most efficient way of selling goods. The idea was that people would buy more merchandise if they were surrounded by a variety of stores in one location. This approach progressed in the 1950s when the indoor shopping center was introduced, and anything else became “second-rate.” The typical American lifestyle is highly influenced by convenient shopping and has developed into a mega-million dollar industry.” (John/Jane Doe)
The student’s response contains obvious prerequisite knowledge of the basic aspects of summarization. The text offers a few examples for emulation, and a set of guidelines from which the student can construct a summary. However, the prompt itself contains no reference to an audience other than that of the classroom instructor, and even its demands are weakly defined. As it stands, this prompt contains only one sufficiently defined aspect of the three essentials for a rhetorical problem, topic. The response begs the question, for whom is the student writing? The prompt’s language disallows a solution, but it fails to clearly articulate the demand for a response.
Later on, I will propose a set of modified prompts that I believe will elicit clear response. But first let’s talk briefly about the similarities in the language of the two requests, and then address the FYC objective/description under the same critical lens as we did the mathematical problem. What does this prompt expect from the student? The prompt demands of the student a summary, a summary to be constructed from the techniques and materials they are assumed to be familiar with given in the 25 page chapter (that the student may or may not have read, and that may or may not matter as the material contained within the chapter does not necessarily directly correlate to a student’s ability to write successful prose worthy of a passing grade). It may seem reasonable to assume that a student who understands the concepts contained within chapter 1 is capable of writing a passing piece of prose. The chapter discusses the necessity for a thesis statement, and provides strategies on how to combine thesis, content summary, and detail. It should become clear that the bulk of this discussion relies on the assumption that students have either not read the chapter or not understood the chapter, which is likely due the language of intimidation it employs. The chapter contains a fractured subjective form of the essence of that which makes the mathematical problem work so well: clear instructions. However, it neglects to prescribe the three essential components of the Rhetorical problem. Grading experience with the BA: 1 assignment leads me to believe that not but a handful of students approached this assignment from the step-by-step process offered in the chapter’s text. In addition, the prompt itself contains no specific reiteration of successful techniques required; it merely refers the student imprecisely to a 25 page chunk of material embedded in which are the critical terms necessary for success, which in many cases students equate with a passing grade.
To go on a brief, illustrative tangent, if we were to look at the mathematical word problem as exuding a sort of self-contained, cold and objective-hubris the BA: 1 assignment prompt radiates like a lump of room temperature polarized metal nearing the end of its magnetic life. An assignment worded like BA: 1 by its very vague-nature neglects to descend into the realm of the specific; it instead assumes prerequisite knowledge, and student familiarity with concepts such as, thesis, audience, and grammar, in a different way than what is demanded by the nature of a seemingly self-contained word problem; as the external knowledge necessary to solve the problem is not a formula, but a nebulous and limitless idea. By assuming students are familiar with thesis, audience, concepts of exigency and topic one runs the risk of falling into the same pitfalls encountered when assuming students have read the chapter. In an ideal learning environment, an instructor could feel safe in this assumption, but the world in which we teach is hardly ideal, and perhaps that is part of a larger problem to be discussed elsewhere. This particular prompt-like creature directs the student to 25 pages of material that do not indicate how one can write a successful summary (for success in FYC is subject to debate where with mathematical problems of the nature we are dealing, it is not) but rather suggest ways for students to become successful. In addition to its discussion of the essential components of a summary, this particular chapter devotes a lot of effort to providing contextual justification for the consumption of its techniques. It does so by embedding intimidating and traditionally abstract sets of references to the stereotypical university level offerings in such a way as to offer students a dire warning, (but one of double-sided warmth and thoughtful affection) that in the future, should they fail to successfully adhere to the principles of proper summarization contained herein, in a hypothetical “psychology midterm, they may be asked to explain Carl Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious and to show how it differs from Sigmund Freud’s theory of the personal unconscious,” and find themselves at an utter loss. This first chapter of the first English book most of these students have ever seen in college cuts with its blazing sword of mighty language, (a sword nonetheless containing a core of ice) the obliterating fact that they will undoubtedly have to read Freud (7).
But more seriously, like mastering a mathematical concept, to become a proficient and successful summarizer, a student must practice. Similar to mathematics, chapters in FYC books offer examples and techniques, but do so with language that is heavily entrenched in subjective suggestiveness as opposed to rational objectivity, such as “X does Y sufficiently, make-sure you do X, technique Z can be used to better do X, doing Y will help you more coherently achieve Z, etc.” (21-41). Within a single chapter, a student of composition reads upwards of 25 pages of example, technique, and suggestion before being prompted to practice. I assume that our own program’s BA: 1’s suggestion to “use the material on summaries in Ch. 1” becomes all but meaningless to the student, who as we all know, may or may not have read the chapter entirely. How is it possible for a student to pick and choose enough of the aspects listed in the 25 plus pages of Chapter 1 to create a successful summary? And after that, condense it into a single paragraph when the examples they have been given are all considerably polished in form. It is partly the extremely nebulous nature of what is considered successful composing that leads to poor grades and student concerns, the likes of which are touched upon further in this discussion.
There are further similarities between both assignments. Both the mathematical problem and the English prompt-creature contain necessary numbers for determining the unknown variable. Unlike the mathematical problem, the FYC prompt uses a chapter number, referring not to essential bits of information but leading them to intimidating bodies of text containing not correct, but probable suggestions for success. The mathematical problem gives students the precise amount of information required to arrive at the correct solution. It is up to the student then to take an appropriate approach given his/her knowledge of formulae. The problem with the English assignment does not only lie in the subjectivity of its demanded response or the size of the body of knowledge necessary to be successful in the art of responding, but instead in a student’s lack of confidence surrounding successful approach. I believe that a restructuring of the prompt’s text, complete with a basic offering of the three essential components of its rhetorical problem, would alleviate to some extent the student’s lack of confidence. If the student knew s/he had the tools or even if the student was made to believe, that is, given the illusion that the prompt was not merely a prompt, but a seemingly self-contained problem, then the student could approach the assignment with the confidence that is becoming so necessary a part of writing throughout FYC. However, the idea behind self-contained problems is problematic. A math problem cannot be self-contained, because it requires minute bits of prerequisite knowledge. Even the most elementary problem 1+1=2 assumes knowledge of a concept of numbers, addition, etc. Extending this idea to the problem earlier discussed a student’s ability to perceive the problem as self-contained relies largely on the infiltration and amalgamation of the requisite mathematical concepts into the unconscious. Conscious application of the techniques of a summary, on the other hand, is often muddled by student’s unfamiliarity with verbal construction or the hindrances of grammar. In short, they are all by products of a lack of practice, practice that is so heavily emphasized in mathematics, as emulation is generally regarded as the most efficient way to learn the concepts posed by problems of the difficulty we are discussing.
However, being the one class all students have to take at University, FYC does not, nor can it provide lab-like sessions for the practice and application of writing knowledge. Instead, its noble teachers are forced to condense theory and practice into an eighty minute session once a week. Altering the language used in FYC prompts to more rigidly require students to write seems to deterministically decide content. And this leads to a brief tangent on the supposed dangers of limiting student expression. I do not believe that restricting students’ self expression in FYC to be necessarily detrimental, as freshman writing is often in the fledgling stages of development. The opposite argument could be posed: that this premature stage of development is precisely the place for the encouragement of self-expression. By determining largely what the students will be responding to, we approach the borders of a somewhat scary cliff – template style, standardized systems of good writing. However, where these standardized examples of what constitutes successful student writing have failed in the past is on their lack of emphasis on process. While a typical TAAS or TAKS essay fails is in its emphasis on its template: Introduction, three body paragraphs, conclusion; it succeeds in examining proper proportions for its prompt, but fails miserably to focus on how students arrived at the content of their product and thus becomes a one-time exercise that may or may not benefit students at all. If a widely agreed upon process for the construction of FYC writing prompts and expectations could be created, then FYC instructors could grade student-papers in such a way that any deviation from the rhetorical situating of the prompt would result in near failure to the student. By requiring an answer and not a subjective response, students would benefit greatly in critical apprehension of their own deviations. That is, if a student were forced to write while in the formal developmental stages of FYC, with a lack of emphasis on individual expression and a heavy emphasis on form, structure, and adherence to the components of the rhetorical problem, then that same student would benefit from the ability to see his deviations in a critically appreciable light, unknown to the writer who develops through self-expression, an who responds rather than solves.
Self-expression should not be squelched, but promoted by instructors through free-writing and journal exercises that are not weighted. I do not believe it is beneficial in FYC to encourage the majority of students to explore the boundaries of their self-expression within assignments that determine their grade. A misguided response to the nebulous prompts of now would result in a weak attempt and not a strong response or solution to the problem. We can’t teach students the universally transferable skills that we should without providing them with universally static and contextualized prompts. The limitations could be overridden by requiring the student to submit a brief reflective essay on times where they felt the new prompts failed – times where their growing critical lens threatened to overflow the restrictions imposed by the language of the rhetorical problem– they could more easily trace their individual expressive progress, as opposed to forcing young and developing writers to find their voice through sheepish meandering: a practice that I feel largely determines their voice, instead of uncovering it. Again, if students were required to respond to a restricted but clearly defined rhetorical problem, where process is tracked through adherence to the application of a mastery of prior knowledge (in the form of summary and thesis construction, periphrastic capability, etc.) then they could better understand their developing voice’s need to deviate from such a structure, thus easing their critical apprehension of the inevitable expectations of the future, which include but are not limited to interdisciplinary requirements in fields ranging from math and science to so-called “real-life” rhetorical situations, and purely personal creation or recreational writing. If they were provided with a universally transferable system of response, then theoretically they could extend that to the demands of all the disciplines, and FYC could again gain a sense of tangible pedagogical result, that has been so lacking as evidenced in the problematic dissenting opinions of administrative and institutional boards who ask: what are we teaching, if anything to students of FYC.
Many of you might feel that by giving the student the essential components of the rhetorical problem that you are, in a sense, doing some of the work for that student. Ask yourselves; is the extra work it would take to clarify an assignment’s text, to supply students with a rhetorical situation clearly, and to scrap nebulous and imprecise assignment write-ups, worth its potential results? You might also question whether or not providing the three essential components of the rhetorical problem is all I’ve made it seem to be. It seems that it would be an instructor’s role to clarify assignments for students and this leads to a discussion of another troublesome aspect of a split-instruction environment such as the one at Texas Tech: the disconnect between classroom instructor clarification of textbook assignments and the sporadic and varying levels of specificity of TOPIC assignment prompts.
Practical contextualization of assignments should not be limited to the classroom setting; it should not be as subjective as to vary from classroom to classroom. Practical contextualization should be integrated into the assignment prompt along with the rhetorical situating we have been discussing. Starting a prompt in the abstract is not confusing so long as it moves to the specific eventually. However, there is no practical benefit to be had from maintaining an abstract tone throughout a FYC prompt. For example, a recent assignment that has been receiving a lot of criticism around my own campus is a critique of a critique. The prompt for assignment BA: 5 states:
“Before reading the discussion of this model critique, write your own informal response to this critique. What are its strengths and weaknesses? To what extent does the critique follow the general Guidelines for Writing Critiques that we outlined on page 67[1]? To the extent it varies from the guidelines, speculate on why. Jot down some ideas for a critique that takes a different approach to Ryan’s essay.” (79)
I can imagine a student staring at their computer screen one hour before the paper is due to be submitted, saying “so this is a critique of a critique of a critique of a critique of a critique…” Why should we not integrate a practical contextualization into the prompt itself instead of relying on the teacher who may forget or may be preaching to sleeping students? While grading this particular assignment I received several writing concerns from students indicating a complete lack of understanding regarding this assignment’s objectives. After speaking with a colleague about the issue, I began to integrate into my commentary a practical contextualization of the rhetorical situation by asking them to think about their favorite movie or novel. In essence I began to supply students with a modified prompt-like creature of my own, one where I (admittedly) did not implicitly state the three essential components of the rhetorical problem, but tried at least to contextualize the assignment for the bewildered student lost in the abstract language of the academic textbook (whose ideas of contextualization range from practical (gas-prices) to examples bordering on the absurdly presumptuous for FYC (Marxism)):
“Think about your favorite novel. Imagine picking up the paper and reading a negative book review of this novel. While reading this review (which can be considered a critique) you notice several holes and inadequacies. You feel the urge to defend your novel and to point our some of this person’s particular mishaps that you noticed while you read. Or imagine you read a book review that leaves you feeling satisfied. What about the book review did the author do well, what tools did s/he use to analyze the novel and why did the critique leave you feeling particularly satisfied. Think of this assignment as a controlled response to the author of either of these particular book reviews. Distance yourself and do not become lost in the content of the book review without speaking to the larger critical implications of the author’s remarks. Determine whether the author of the passage beginning on page 74 agrees with the work he’s reviewing or if he disagrees with it and proceed from there. Good luck.”
Given, this particular assignment was to critique a fairly model example that contained a minimum of errors on the subject of Dance-school admissions (hardly a topic the students were thrilled by). But by dragging the actual exigency out of the realm of the abstract and into the practical, by offering it to the student on terms they are capable of consuming, I believe I made the prompt easier to understand.
More coming….
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sources used so far:
Still deciphering the citation guidelines on this one:
Pearson Custom Publishing. First-Year Writing, Writing in the Disciplines,
Flower, Linda, Hayes, John R. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32 (1981): 365-87.
No comments:
Post a Comment