For class this week we were assigned a reading by Janice M. Lauer entitled Rhetoric and Composition. It was a longer reading, and one rather dense with theory, terminology, and references to other important works in the field of rhetoric and composition studies, but I actually rather enjoyed the read. Although I’m more of a creative writer than one who intends to study writing and its mechanics as a discipline or for the purposes of teaching it, I like reading certain academic papers such as this (which, I know, is strange.) Sometimes I find learning the theory behind stuff fun, so long as I’m able to comprehend the information!
Lauer defines Rhetoric and Composition Studies as, essentially, the study and teaching of writing in different contexts such as civic, workplace, academic, and cross-cultural contexts. It’s a multimodal discipline that utilizes different modes of inquiry such as historical, critical, and theoretical, and it is interdisciplinary in that it draws on the work of other disciplines such as literary theory, sociology, and so forth. Although many people think of literature studies when they hear about English being taught in schools, rhetoric and composition bring the teaching of the study of writing (such as the arrangement and style of a finished writing product) and rhetoric (written and oral discourse) under the umbrella of English classes. This discussion about what English studies are reminded me of a time when, in my Sophomore year of undergrad, I went to a friend’s house for dinner and her father asked me what I was majoring in. When I said English, he said “…What, like English as a second language? Don’t you already speak it?” And then, after learning that wasn’t what I meant, he followed up with “…like…ye olde English?” I wish that I’d had some of Lauer’s definitions on hand, then, because while I barely remember what I’d replied with, it surely was just something along the lines of “uh, no…like…writing? And…books?” In my defense, I was just sort of bamboozled by the question in the moment!
At the time when Rhetoric and Composition Studies was first emerging as its own field (prior to the 70s and 80s, composition was not considered a full-fledged discipline), its scholars were investigating questions such as:
- Does writing construct or only transmit knowledge?
- Is writing social or individual?
- What is the province of rhetoric?
- Who can be a writer/rhetor?
- What is the relative importance of ethos, pathos, and logos today?
I think that these are questions that we are still exploring today. For instance, in regards to “is writing social or individual,” I may have thought when I was younger that writing is strictly individual, but as I’ve gotten older I realized that it has very social aspects too (at least for me.) When I’m stumped while writing something, for example, I find that talking it out with some writing buddies can help get me unstuck and/or introduce me to new ideas and possibilities I’d never even thought of. And since writing is (usually) meant to be read, doesn’t that make it inherently social as well? I’m sure this question of social or individual is one we could all have an exploratory conversation about today and still be left with follow-up questions that are worth thinking about and, perhaps, researching if we were so inclined!
Early studies on the composing process aimed to help students get started in their writing process, investigate ideas, consider readers (audience), receive feedback, and revise their work. Previously, grammar had been one of the main concerns with teaching writing. Rhetoric and Composition studies made writing education more about the process. One of the important ideas put forth by these studies was the importance of prewriting, something not previously taught in schools. Even today, I think schools neglect to teach this idea of developing ideas before you begin writing; I was not taught about prewriting until late elementary or perhaps middle school, and in those early days I was very uncomfortable with it and felt it was a waste of time because I was used to simply developing everything in my mind and then getting it down on the paper.
Something else Lauer’s work discussed was the use of discourses in teaching writing. Namely, she mentions how the EDNA (exposition, description, narration, and argumentation) model of teaching writing discourses. It’s very familiar to me, as I remember being asked to write expository essays, descriptive essays, argumentative essays, and so on throughout much of my school (and the occasional fictional piece, which I assume covers narration?) Studies have called the effective of the EDNA model into question, but Lauer stated that it continues to dominate in schools. That was certainly my experience.
I found the paper’s discussion of responding to, revising, and evaluating texts very interesting, as that is a topic that I am considering covering for my in-class presentation later this semester. Different scholars presented in Lauer’s work had insight into different ways to grade besides numerically, many of which seemed to agree that comments on an in-progress piece of writing were much more helpful than comments on an already-graded work and leagues more helpful than a numerical grade with no comments. This makes sense, of course; writing is not like a math test where there are usually a single set of correct answers. Because writing is open-ended and personal, I don’t believe it can simply be graded with numbers indicating “wrong” or “right.” Scholars also noted the importance of including revision as part of the process, which is why comments on in-progress pieces are so important; they allow the student to take them into consideration and make changes to the work before handing it in for a grade. This allows students to be graded more on their process and the evolution of their thoughts and the piece rather than graded on the teacher’s personal opinion of their writing.
One more aspect of the piece that I found very interesting was the discussion of writing diversity and how students should have rights to their own languages. The researchers whose work is referenced in this part championed the idea that different patterns and varieties of language (ie dialects) should be acceptable in school writings. I remember learning about this in an English class in undergrad and how the enforcement of academic English can be a way of gatekeeping that unfortunately bars diversity from the discipline. However, the acceptance of dialect and slang English can be a way to remove this barrier to education and academia.
The conclusion of the paper states that research in modern Rhetoric and Composition studies often involves building on, qualifying, and challenging previous work and arguments in the field. For that reason among others, it’s important that upcoming scholars in the field be familiar with what came before and how those ideas continue to be relevant today.
