Since this week is centered around the four axiologies—expressivism, rhetoricism, mimeticism, and formalism—I don’t feel compelled to dive into each of the readings individually. Thanks to Dr. Friend’s brief explanations of the four, I entered with an understanding of them. These readings simply provided more context and examples to aid in my understanding of what these concepts look like. With that, I will highlight a few lines from the readings that got me thinking.
“…Silberman said the problems were the result of more mindlessness than of maliciousness.” (Fulkerson 343) I appreciate this being included because sometimes educators, or even those in power making decisions, get a bad reputation for maliciously hurting students. Though there are definitely people out there who are aware of certain problems and choose to ignore them, I think there are more people who are thoughtlessly committing certain acts with good intentions.
“…there is something seriously wrong with classroom methodology that implies one variety of value judgment when another will actually be employed. That is modal confusion, mindlessness.” (Fulkerson 347) As humans, we naturally contradict ourselves, which is what we’re seeing here. Again, these are not malicious intentions—it’s just what happens sometimes. Aligning your methodology with your practice is easier said than done, as it requires very conscious instruction. Not just in how you teach, but in how you assess, the feedback you provide, how you speak to students, etc. It’s unfortunate that this negatively impacts students, but the reality is that educators are just humans who make mistakes and fall short.
“…help them learn enough about various topics to have something worth saying… One resulting methodology is to emphasize research during the prewriting stages…” (Fulkerson 345) I completely agree with this mimetic strategy. I think more informed students will result in more informed responses and writing. As with anything, the more you know about a topic, the more you’ll be able to talk about it. We should absolutely encourage more research during drafting so students can add more substance to their writing.
“…all writing should be seen as collaborative…” (Fulkerson 419). I agree; I think we, as educators, should lean more into the collaborative aspect of writing. I believe that with more collaboration and proper guidance, students will potentially produce better writing. Whether that involves peer reviewing, effective feedback from educators, or engaging with different audiences, students can view writing as a social act, and maybe it would ignite more engagement and curiosity.
“…there are three elements involved in composing: the task environment, the writer’s long-term memory, and the writing process that goes on in the writer’s mind” (Berlin 481). Though this is a slightly broad understanding, I agree that these three things are part of the composing process. Obviously, the rhetorical problem at hand must be considered, then the writer brings their prior knowledge on the topic, and finally, they use their own strategies to produce whatever it is they’d like. These points could be disputed and elaborated upon, but I think this is a solid starting point for understanding what writers bring to the table when embarking on a piece.
One thing I appreciated in Fulkerson’s pieces was his continuous curiosity, which led him to revisit these same concerns time and time again. I’m someone who only looks back when necessary. Though it may sound bad, I’m not interested in how I wrote in the past or reflecting on the past, especially as it relates to my educational experiences. However, I really admired Fulkerson for doing this, especially after so much time had passed. This is a great example of how looking back can reveal how you’ve grown and changed. It definitely makes me want to reflect on where I’ve been, as it could potentially be indicative of where I’m going.
“…the writing in such a course will be judged by how sophisticated or insightful the teacher finds the interpretation of the relevant artifacts to be… the standard of evaluation used is, I assert, actually a mimetic one…” (Fulkerson 662). What jumps out at me here is the emphasis on audience. Outside of the debatable issue of mimetic assessment, it reaffirms the idea that students are writing for an audience of one. If, once you peel back the layers, students are being judged based on the teacher’s perception of sophistication and their interpretation, how can students ever learn to write for themselves or avoid getting caught in the trap of grading? Why would they even want to learn if they know their only task is to write how the teacher would like?
Berlin, James. “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.” College English, vol. 50, no. 5, Sept. 1988, pp. 477-494. National Council of Teachers of English.
Fulkerson, Richard. “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 56, no. 4, June 2005, pp. 654-687. National Council of Teachers of English.
Fulkerson, Richard. “Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 41, no. 4, Dec. 1990, pp. 409-429. National Council of Teachers of English.
Fulkerson, Richard. “Four Philosophies of Composition.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 30, no. 4, Dec. 1979, pp. 343-348. National Council of Teachers of English.
Leave a Reply