A New Writing Classroom

Listening, Motivation, and Habits of Mind

Patrick Sullivan

• Publisher: Utah State University Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9780874219449
• Topic: Langues et linguistique
• Subtopic: Linguistique

In A New Writing Classroom, Patrick Sullivan provides a new generation of teachers a means and a rationale to reconceive their approach to teaching writing, calling into question the discipline's dependence on argument.

Including secondary writing teachers within his purview, Sullivan advocates a more diverse, exploratory, and flexible approach to writing activities in grades six through thirteen. A New Writing Classroom encourages teachers to pay more attention to research in learning theory, transfer of learning, international models for nurturing excellence in the classroom, and recent work in listening to teach students the sort of dialogic stance that leads to higher-order thinking and more sophisticated communication.

The conventional argumentative essay is often a simplistic form of argument, widely believed to be the most appropriate type of writing in English classes, but other kinds of writing may be more valuable to students and offer more important kinds of cognitive challenges. Focusing on listening and dispositions or "habits of mind" as central elements of this new composition pedagogy, A New Writing Classroom draws not just on composition studies but also on cognitive psychology, philosophy, learning theory, literature, and history, making an exciting and significant contribution to the field.

Part I

Listening

1

The Simplistic Argumentative Essay

---

Argumentative Essays

Argument, of course, has long enjoyed a central place in our educational curriculum and in our rhetorical tradition. Founded on major works like Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Cicero’s Orator, our argumentative rhetorical tradition has helped shape the way we think and write now in the west for thousands of years. Argument has also played an important part in our democratic tradition, providing Americans with a means to assess truth and determine value in our grand “marketplace of ideas.”

There are many different kinds of argument, however, and not all of them help us to assess truth and value in mature and useful ways, as we will see. What I propose that we examine together in this chapter is a particularly pernicious and detrimental strain of argument—the simplistic argumentative essay, ubiquitous and often highly valued in high school and first year composition classrooms.

The argumentative essay is currently at the very core of our curriculum, 6–13, and it has become the standard model for “writing” as it is taught in high school and first-year composition (FYC). We see it prominently positioned now at key threshold points across the academic environment (Lunsford and Lunsford 2008; see also Melzer 2009). The SAT Writing Test and the AP English Tests, for example, routinely require argumentative essays. Argumentative writing is also featured prominently in the Common Core Standards, beginning in the 6th grade:

Grade 6: “Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.”

Grades 11–12: “Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.” (45)

Students demonstrate writing proficiency now almost exclusively by writing arguments.

Furthermore, and in what I believe we should regard as related news, the National Commission on Writing has concluded in their report, The Neglected “R,” that 12th-grade students currently produce writing that is “relatively immature and unsophisticated” (National Commission 2003, 17). There is significant evidence to suggest this is, indeed, the case, and I would like to suggest here that this problem is directly related to simplistic argumentative writing.

High school students producing “immature and unsophisticated” writing is a significant problem for our profession, of course, especially as it relates to our ongoing work related to articulation and alignment. We have seen a number of recent high-profile reports addressing this issue, including Department of Education’s A Test of Leadership (United States Department of Education 2006); the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ (2007) College Learning for the New Global Century; Achieve, Inc.’s (2007b, 2013) Closing the Expectations Gap; and Stanford University’s Bridge Project report, (Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio 2003) Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K–12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations. Articulation, alignment, and college readiness continue to be important concerns for our profession and probably will continue to be for many years to come.

Of particular importance for our purposes here is AACU’s report, College Learning for the New Global Century (Association of American Colleges and Universities 2007). The authors of this report urge teachers across disciplines and institutional boundaries to focus more rigorously on developing skills in “inquiry and analysis” (3) and assessing “students’ ability to apply learning to complex problems” (26). The writers of this report echo Robert Kegan’s claim in his book, In Over Our Heads, about the cognitive challenges adults face in modern life, calling for a curriculum that invites students to engage “challenging questions”: “In a world of daunting complexity, all students need practice in integrating and applying their learning to challenging questions and real-world problems” (Kegan 1994, 13). The writers of this report also call on educators to become more “intentional” about the kinds of learning students need:

The council further calls on educators to help students become “intentional learners” who focus, across ascending levels of study and diverse academic programs, on achieving the essential learning outcomes. But to help students do this, educational communities will also have to become far more intentional themselves—both about the kinds of learning students need, and about effective educational practices that help students learn to integrate and apply their learning. (4)

What might such an “intentional” pedagogy look like? What kind of theory would inform its basic principles and practices? What kind of learning would students engage in? What kind of writing would they do in a composition class? And what does current scholarship and research tell us about these important questions?

In many places across the curricular landscape, rhetoric and the strategies of classical argumentation have been incorporated into the practice of teaching writing. The “WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition,” for example, positions rhetorical knowledge at the center of first-year composition instruction:

Rhetorical Knowledge

By the end of first year composition, students should

• Focus on a purpose

• Respond to the needs of different audiences

• Respond appropriately to different kinds of rhetorical situations

• Use conventions of format and structure appropriate to the rhetorical situation

• Adopt appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality

• Understand how genres shape reading and writing

• Write in several genres

Faculty in all programs and departments can build on this preparation by helping students learn

• The main features of writing in their fields

• The main uses of writing in their fields

• The expectations of readers in their fields (Council of Writing Program Administrators 2000)

Furthermore, many high schools now offer sophisticated instruction in rhetoric and argumentation in advanced-level English courses and in AP classes. Many first-year composition programs use rhetoric and classical argumentation as well. There is good work obviously being done here in high schools and in first-year composition programs in college.

A Bridge to Nowhere

Unfortunately, however, we should probably not be surprised to learn that more simplistic types of argumentative writing are also being taught, especially at lower levels of curriculum in high schools and in basic writing classes in college. Workload issues come into play here (Mosley 2006), along with state-mandated testing programs that typically drive curriculum as well as teaching and learning (Koretz 2008; Perlstein 2007; Ravitch 2010; Rothstein, Jacobsen, and Wilder 2008; Sacks 1999). This type of simplified “argument,” often using the five-paragraph theme format (Hillocks 2010; Seo 2007; Smith 2006; Tremmel 2011), is often the default writing assignment in high school and basic writing English classes. It is particularly common in circumstances where high stakes testing drives curriculum. The rationale for this approach is well known and seems, at least at first glance, commonsensical. This type of writing gives students a “place to begin.” It is typically theorized and employed as a kind of “bridge” assignment—a kind of writing activity that is “challenging enough,” until a student develops the skill to do something more sophisticated. But there are significant problems with this approach, as Ed White notes:

Powerful formulas help students get going and often help them to pass tests—but at the cost of creativity or really thinking about what they say. I would like to argue here that formulas—and especially the five-paragraph essay formula—should be regarded by teachers as a way-station on the path to more real writing. This formula should only be used to meet short-term goals. Unfortunately, I think most students are happy to stop with the formula, so teachers should avoid it whenever possible. (White 2010, 213)

In an ideal world, we would have moved beyond this type of writing long ago, even for our most underprepared and unmotivated students. A good deal of evidence however, suggests that this type of writing is still very much with us—even though we know that in most important ways this is not real writing. How else to explain, for example, the extraordinary trove of material available online related to the five paragraph essay? A recent internet search using the phrase “the five-paragraph essay” returned 889,000 results. The size of that number suggests that this kind of writing is still stubbornly and unfortunately with us. This is a version of “writing” that is radically impoverished in a number of significant ways, as these guidelines for teachers available at About.com (and brought up from among the first of my 889,000 results) suggest:

This simple step-by-step guide might make a great handout for your students!

Difficulty: Average

Time Required: 45 minutes

Here’s how:

1. Before you begin writing, decide on your answer to the question asked of you. This is your basic thesis.

2. Before you begin writing, decide on what three pieces of evidence/support you will use to prove your thesis.

3. Write your introductory paragraph. Place your thesis along with your three pieces of evidence in order of strength (least to most) at the end of this paragraph.

4. Write the first paragraph of your body. You should begin by restating your thesis, focusing on the support of your first piece of evidence.

5. End your first paragraph with a transitional sentence that leads to paragraph number two.

6. Write paragraph two of the body focusing on your second piece of evidence. Once again make the connection between your thesis and this piece of evidence.

7. End your second paragraph with a transitional sentence that leads to paragraph number three.

8. Repeat step #6 using your third piece of evidence.

9. Begin your concluding paragraph by restating your thesis. Include the three points you’ve used to prove your thesis.

Tips:

1. Never use I or you (Unless specific...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part I: Listening
• Part II: Motivation
• Part III: Habits of Mind
• Conclusion
• Appendix 1: Reading Guide for “Sonny’s Blues” by James Baldwin
• Appendix 2: Reading Guide for “Patterns of Culture” Assignment
• Appendix 3: “Only Quotations” Reading Guide
• Appendix 4: Sample Self-Authorship Essay
• Appendix 5: Sample First-Year Composition “Patterns of Culture” Essay
• Acknowledgments
• References
• About the Author
• Index