Writing Leads To…
Many believe that going through the moves of writing instruction will eventually lead to the mastered ability to write in any situation. Though, Downs and Wardle, tell us this is clearly not the case. Many assume that writing instructors have the ability to teach students all of the skills needed to write in every single situation they find themselves in. Writing teachers, and writing instruction, cannot be seen as knowers of the future. Instead, writing teachers help build a foundation in which students understand writing apart from specific forms.
With this, I would like to discuss Jack’s case study. In the beginning, Jack always felt like he could never get to the bottom of reading and writing: how to do it, and how to do it well. By reading research about writing and conducting his own research about writing (some of which he had previously done) through the lens of another identity he had experience in and felt confident in (police work), he was able to understand the nature of writing and what it can accomplish. FYC courses, like ones at our current university, do not hold space for this — we plug information into the open form that is writing. This is not writing, but rather following. Breaking the surface would be allowing the student to make the “form”, whatever that is for them.
The first time I truly acknowledged writing studies as a discipline was in an English 3000-level course. Despite being an English major, I felt the work I did in this one class helped me understand the nature of writing. Similarly to Stephanie (case study 2), the research I conducted for this class (discourse analysis) contributed to a conversation. From there, I realized these kinds of conversations keep going, and veer other ways for other conversations to occur. Then, I reflected on my work and thought, “wow, I did this”. I fear that without understanding how writing can even get you to this point, you will not ever truly feel it.
To Achieve Success
Wardle leaves me with one question: why is composition only a requirement for a student’s first year? A sequential two-part course seems to be the way to go, but then it just stops. Why should it stop? Just because each student moves into their own discipline with differing rules and regulations does not mean they should stop writing about writing. After all, everyone writes. It would be helpful to work through the complexities of writing throughout one’s undergraduate career, not only the first year.
I can see how this may be radical and hard to carry out. Though, change can happen little by little. If we include more courses about writing that all students have to take, change in student writing will be easier to track. And, there will be less students like Jack out there who feel they cannot write because they never learned how writing actually works on a theoretical level.
The idea of eliminating FYC also intrigued me. I do not think we should, but it is interesting to think about. What would student writing look like? Would it be worse? I do not think we can say for sure if such large changes cannot necessarily be tracked over a two-part sequence like Wardle concluded. It feels wrong to say so, but eliminating it for a semester or two and seeing how those students fare would be interesting, despite it being an insane idea that does not take into account the trajectory of the students’ education. If FYC is not doing what we want it to do, and noticeable change comes under idyllic circumstances, why do we still keep it around? Is this too much of a pessimistic view? Possibly…
Leave a Reply